M40 scope base project by LRI

[LRI]

We've been hinting around at this for the last few weeks. The artifact parts have arrived and I am about to start with the modeling work. I feel like I'm holding something from a Raiders of the Lost Arc movie.

So it begins. I'll post some additional photos as I progress through the autopsy.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

This is going to be awesome!

 

[Belvedere]

Ooooooo

 

[LRI]

Chipping away at this...

 

[Jrb572]

I’m in for one

 

[Jcrich]

We've been hinting around at this for the last few weeks. The artifact parts have arrived and I am about to start with the modeling work. I feel like I'm holding something from a Raiders of the Lost Arc movie.

So it begins. I'll post some additional photos as I progress through the autopsy.

Very nice and I want one…

 

[vikman99]

That sounds exciting!

It's always thrilling to embark on a project that feels like an adventure.

 

[BEJ762]

Well, this is outstanding. Sorry iceng but with Chad moving forward, this changes the game.

Chad - I will need 8 from you.

 

[LRI]

So, down the rabbit hole, we go on this. If we take a big (BIG) step back and look at this thing, some small but key details reveal themselves. Diving a bit further, I start to think about the gun industry as a whole and how it has been rather cottage for a very, very long time.

If you can, consider the 1970s and 80s when this part was made. CNC manufacturing was an asset obtainable only by companies with big pockets and huge work statements to solve. Guns barely scratched into that surface. Let alone, little shitbox parts like a scope and ring set made by a very small optics company. (I say that with great affection) I'm about 99.99% sure this base was originally made on manual equipment. The dead giveaway to me is the corner fillets. (inside and outside radius features) They are not tangent to the flat surfaces they mate with.

I'll try to paint this picture a little more. Draw a 2-dimensional box on a sheet of paper. Now imagine a tool following along that geometry with the tool on the left side of the line on the paper. Regardless of how big or small the tool is, 90 degrees' worth of the circumference will engage the part at each inside corner, whereas a much smaller portion would typically be used when running along the side of a straight wall. When the tool bites into that corner, it will try to do a few different or combinations of bad things. Chatter, push-off, or gouge are the three most likely.

In this photo, we see gouge and a trace of chatter. The gouge is evident by the well-defined line-looking feature just to the right of my pencil lead. The trace appearance of diagonal lines in the corner fillet shows the chatter.

Without trying to sound arrogant or cocky, stuff like this is what I generally go to great lengths to avoid. A modern machine/software, and a basic understanding of what is going on, makes inclusions like this very easy to avoid. I'd lay a healthy wager that what Unertl did was take a 1/4" dia tool and chew this profile out on an angled fixture in a vertical knee-type mill. When the guy doing the work got to the corner, he stopped in the Y axis, locked the table gib, then started moving the X to the next position. He reversed the process and finished by coming back out in Y. Because it's a manual machine, he conventional milled instead of climb cut. Climb-milling steel on a manual is a good way to break tools and scrap parts. (for those wondering what that is or means, the internet will show you)

If I were programming this from a blank sheet, I would rough it out with the biggest, most aggressive tool I can realistically fit into the feature. I would then use a much smaller diameter tool to finish. This way, I let the software/machine create the inside radius (arc) features while maintaining a consistent amount of tool engagement in the material. That is what I would do to avoid gouging the snot out of a part.

So, armed with that knowledge, I am faced with a decision. Just how Period correct looking am I going to go with this?

Another example:

These two corner features were made with the part standing up on edge (like shown in the pic) and then running a radius cutter across it. If we look closely at the top edge, it's not tangent. The tool was left a little shallow in the Z axis depth to ensure that it didn't cut too deep and gouge the piss out of the front edge of the base. With a modern machining center you wouldn't have to do this because it'd be profiled using a single tool. It's known as a "blend line."

So the question I am faced with again: Use best practice, or do I intentionally screw this up a little so that it appears like it was made before some of you reading this were even born. My plan is to emulate what you see here. I can create these small errors in the base model of the part and set up my toolpaths so that they goof this up a little.

My main objective here is to point some of this out so that if you buy one from me, you understand the reason/intent.

More to follow. . .

Thanks for lookin.

 

[Charlie112]

We've been hinting around at this for the last few weeks. The artifact parts have arrived and I am about to start with the modeling work. I feel like I'm holding something from a Raiders of the Lost Arc movie.

So it begins. I'll post some additional photos as I progress through the autopsy.

I am in for one!!!

 

[Charlie112]

So, down the rabbit hole, we go on this. If we take a big (BIG) step back and look at this thing, some small but key details reveal themselves. Diving a bit further, I start to think about the gun industry as a whole and how it has been rather cottage for a very, very long time.

If you can, consider the 1970s and 80s when this part was made. CNC manufacturing was an asset obtainable only by companies with big pockets and huge work statements to solve. Guns barely scratched into that surface. Let alone, little shitbox parts like a scope and ring set made by a very small optics company. (I say that with great affection) I'm about 99.99% sure this base was originally made on manual equipment. The dead giveaway to me is the corner fillets. (inside and outside radius features) They are not tangent to the flat surfaces they mate with.

I'll try to paint this picture a little more. Draw a 2-dimensional box on a sheet of paper. Now imagine a tool following along that geometry with the tool on the left side of the line on the paper. Regardless of how big or small the tool is, 90 degrees' worth of the circumference will engage the part at each inside corner, whereas a much smaller portion would typically be used when running along the side of a straight wall. When the tool bites into that corner, it will try to do a few different or combinations of bad things. Chatter, push-off, or gouge are the three most likely.

In this photo, we see gouge and a trace of chatter. The gouge is evident by the well-defined line-looking feature just to the right of my pencil lead. The trace appearance of diagonal lines in the corner fillet shows the chatter.

Without trying to sound arrogant or cocky, stuff like this is what I generally go to great lengths to avoid. A modern machine/software, and a basic understanding of what is going on, makes inclusions like this very easy to avoid. I'd lay a healthy wager that what Unertl did was take a 1/4" dia tool and chew this profile out on an angled fixture in a vertical knee-type mill. When the guy doing the work got to the corner, he stopped in the Y axis, locked the table gib, then started moving the X to the next position. He reversed the process and finished by coming back out in Y. Because it's a manual machine, he conventional milled instead of climb cut. Climb-milling steel on a manual is a good way to break tools and scrap parts. (for those wondering what that is or means, the internet will show you)

If I were programming this from a blank sheet, I would rough it out with the biggest, most aggressive tool I can realistically fit into the feature. I would then use a much smaller diameter tool to finish. This way, I let the software/machine create the inside radius (arc) features while maintaining a consistent amount of tool engagement in the material. That is what I would do to avoid gouging the snot out of a part.

So, armed with that knowledge, I am faced with a decision. Just how Period correct looking am I going to go with this?

Another example:

These two corner features were made with the part standing up on edge (like shown in the pic) and then running a radius cutter across it. If we look closely at the top edge, it's not tangent. The tool was left a little shallow in the Z axis depth to ensure that it didn't cut too deep and gouge the piss out of the front edge of the base. With a modern machining center you wouldn't have to do this because it'd be profiled using a single tool. It's known as a "blend line."

So the question I am faced with again: Use best practice, or do I intentionally screw this up a little so that it appears like it was made before some of you reading this were even born. My plan is to emulate what you see here. I can create these small errors in the base model of the part and set up my toolpaths so that they goof this up a little.

My main objective here is to point some of this out so that if you buy one from me, you understand the reason/intent.

More to follow. . .

Thanks for lookin.

goof up toolpaths a little sound great to me,

 

[LRI]

Tangent corners....

The same part features, but look closer as the arcs are no longer tangent to the right vertical feature.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I know this is a long post, but I hope everyone thinking about buying ine of these reproduction Unertl mounts will read it. There is some detailed information about the mounts and how they can be reproduced. We're also looking for some feedback on a few characteristics of the repro mounts. LRI is going to do their absolute best to make these amazing replicas and it's important to know what collectors think about the decisions/options involved with making the repro mounts.

This is an awesome project and I've been waiting years to help get repro mounts intolerance the hands of collectors. A few years ago I started getting quotes from various shops, but the cost was too high and I wasn't sure if I'd be able to get the exact product I wanted. So, I was never able to get a project like this up and running.

A few weeks ago I found out that LRI was making reproduction XM3 parts and they looked perfect! I reached out to Chad Dixon to see if he'd be interested in doing a run of Unertl mounts. He was extremely happy to make them and we started discussing various methods of how to produce the mounts. After talking to Chad, I knew that he was the right person for the job and that he would be able to make an extremely accurate reproduction.

A week or so ago I mailed him 3 original USMC Unertl mounts and an original USMC welded Redfield 40X mount. The dimensions for the repro mounts will be taken from the new old stock condition Unertl mount, and then specs can be verified with the 2 other used Unertl mounts. A new condition mount is needed for this product because used mounts were modified by the 2112's when they were fit to the M40A1 rifles.

The modifications were mainly on the 2 lugs on the underside of the Unertl mount, but blasting, refinishing, welding, etc. on the used mounts can also change the specs very slightly. For the used mounts, the Marines would test fit a mount to a rifle, then file the lugs on the underside to fit the slots in the receiver. This means that used Unertl mounts will each have different specs, since they were hand fit to each receiver. By using an original new condition mount, Chad will be able to produce reproductions that have the original specs and can be modified to fit the slots on a receiver. If someone took specs from a used mount to make reproductions, it will run the risk of possibility being a loose fit in the receiver cutouts. Using the original specs on the new condition mount essentially adds a little bit more metal to the lugs, which can then be hand fit to the receiver cutouts. That will ensure a very tight fit, as originally intended.

Using a new old stock mount also gives us the exact exterior dimensions. The Marines never really modified the exterior, but sometimes the Unertl mounts were refinished. The blasting and possibly sanding in preparation for refinishing will change the specs very slightly. The 2112's had to remove the original finish and any rust/pitting before refinishing the mounts. It's pretty much a non-issue, these would be extremely minute changes to the surfaces, but we're going fo the best possible end product and we need the original specs. Sometimes the Marines had to use tiny spot welds to keep the rings in place. With an original new condition mount, we don't have to worry about any modifications such as resetting the ring lowers into the base.

This is an extraordinarily unique opportunity to create reproduction Unertl mounts using the specs from a new condition USMC mount. I only know of 2 or 3 of these new old stock mounts still in existence (this mount being one of those 2 or 3 known). The guy in California claimed to have used a new old stock Unertl mount for his reproductions, but with the lies and other issues involved with that individual, we can't truly be sure that he took specs from a new mount. And even if he did use a new condition mount, he purposefully "flawed" them, so that he could tell the difference between his mounts and original ones. That means the reproduction mounts LRI is creating could be the only repro mounts ever created with 100% correct specs that were taken directly from a new condition Unertl mount! That is something extraordinary and it's exactly what collectors/clone builders have been dreaming of for a long time!

Another reason for sending the used mounts is because LRI can discreetly remove some of the finish and access the raw steel. I don't want to have that done to the mount that's in new condition, since it would greatly devalue that extremely rare piece of history. The used mounts are already worn and have marks on them, so adding a new mark isn't a big deal. We want to access the raw steel beneath the finish, so that LRI can test the metal and find out exactly what steel alloy Unertl used on these mounts! That's definitely going the extra mile with these reproductions!

We know that the steel alloy used on the original Unertl mounts had a higher chrome content or something like that. This made it difficult for the surface finish to stay in place, which is why used mounts tend to show a lot of wear. We know that collectors want the most accurate reproduction they can get, so a small detail like this is extremely important. The finish might not look the best and/or it could wear down more easily with extended heavy use (dragging around in the field, painting then stripping then painting again, etc.), but that's how the original mounts were. If a buyer wants a more durable finish or something that could look more clean/uniform, they could always send it out for cerakoting (but I doubt anyone will do that).

The finish on the original mounts is very unique and it's due to the steel composition. I hope collectors are excited about this aspect of the reproduction mounts, since it's another step that can be taken in order to make them that much closer to the originals. Collectors/clone builders can also wear down this finish and create the "gray ghost" aesthetics of the heavily used M40A1's we see in old photos. Bare metal scopes, mounts, receivers, barrels, bottom metal, trigger guards and sling swivels look absolutely amazing on the A1 rifles and a few clone builders have sought out this exact look for their build. Having the original steel alloy and finish will help with this endeavor, and it will allow people to exactly replicate the gray ghost look on their own clones.

Even though the used mounts have been slightly modified, we can still use them for valuable data. One of the mounts I sent to LRI has the last 4 digits of the serial number from the receiver it was originally attached to. This shows us how the mounts were marked, where they were marked and the size/font of the numbers used on the original stamp. I've run an idea by Chad, and I think it would be a great idea if LRI could offer a serial number marking service when people buy these mounts off their website. I've discussed the characteristics of the repro Unertl mounts with quite a few people over the years and one of the first questions I always get is whether or not they can have their last 4 digits of their rifle's serial number added to the mount.

Here's what I was thinking. Possibility have a drop down menu on the product page that will allow buyers to add their serial number to the mount. Buyers will have the choice of a mounts with no numbers or for a small fee, LRI can custom stamp their last 4 digits in the correct location with the correct size/font numbers. If a buyer selects the marking option, a notes box will appear and the buyer can enter in the 4 digits they want stamped on their mount. This is probably the easiest way to handle this custom option, but this also means that the buyer needs to be 100% certain about the information they entered.

If the buy enters in the wrong digits by accident, there won't really be any recourse for fixing it once it's stamped. LRI can't just weld up the wrong numbers and restamp the mount. The weld would probably show through the new finish and it would cost more time/money. If the mount is stamped with the numbers provided, there will probably have to be a no return policy on it (obviously if the fault were on LRI's end, they'd make it right, I have no doubt in my mind about their amazing customer service). Maybe there's a solution to reduce the chances of entering the wrong number into the online form. Lots of places require a password to be entered in twice, to ensure that the user enters the correct information. Maybe LRI could do the same and require the buyer to enter in the 4 digit serial number twice. That redundancy might help decrease any mistakes and help ensure that everyone is getting exactly what they ordered.

What do you guys think about a custom serial number service for these reproduction Unertl mounts? Would anyone here be interested in such an option?

Chad and I have also been discussing the possibility of making these mounts out of 1 piece of steel. The original Unertl mounts and reproductions have always had a point of failure in the mount's construction. This failure is with how the ring lowers are attached to the base and how they are secured. On the original mounts, the ring lowers were attached to the base by brazing them in place (or something like that, my terminology might not be correct). The point is that the ring lowers can sometimes come loose and the only solution has been to weld them in place. The 2112's would sometimes use tiny spot welds on the original USMC Unertl mounts when the rings started coming loose. The repro mounts from California have a few large disgusting welds that keep the ring lowers in place, since they aren't even brazed in place.

We've discussed the possibility of doing a 1 piece mount for a few reasons. The first reason is pretty obvious, a 1 piece mount would never suffer any of the failures that the original mounts qnd other reproduction mounts have suffered. A 1 piece mount can also be used as a way to help distinguish the reproduction mounts from the original USMC mounts. If you were able to use something like an X-ray to scan the mounts, it would immediately show that they're 1 piece and not original. This will help prevent people from passing them off as the real deal, and it wouldn't destroy the value of the original USMC Unertl mounts. This is definitely a more difficult option and I'm not even sure it can be done. However, if anyone is able to pull it off, my money is on Chad and his guys at LRI! They have a few 5-axis machines, which might be able to handle an advanced design like this.

What do you guys think about the 1 piece vs 3 piece mount? A 1 piece mount won't be exactly original, but it will be much much stronger and you'll never have any issues with it. A 3 piece mount (base and 2 ring lowers) would be 100% correct, but it could have issues like the originals did. There could be other methods to attaching the ring lowers if a 3 piece mount is desired, I'm sure LRI could discreetly weld them to the base on the underside of the base. In addition to the original style of brazing, that could solve the problem of rings coming loose from the base. I personally think we should try to do a 1 piece base, but we'd like some feedback from collectors and potential buyers on this issue. Even though we're shooting for as much originality as possible with these repro mounts, we also want to avoid any potential issues with their construction. A 1 piece mount would still have all the same exterior specs as the originals, it would just be a stronger product.

Whether or not the reproduction mounts are 1 piece or 3 piece, the ring tops will be matched to the ring lowers. The rings can be discreetly marked on the flats where they connect with each other, so that people will know how the rings are supposed to line up. Another consideration to take into account is how the rings look when properly attached to a Unertl MST-100 scope. Original rings on the Unertl mounts come together quite nicely when torqued down on the scope tube. Other reproduction mounts like the ones USO made a long time ago have a slight gap between the ring top and lower pieces when attached to the Unertl scope. This is something that we want to avoid, we want to replicate the original look, even when it comes to attaching the mount to the scope. I don't think anyone else has ever truly taken this into consideration when making replica Unertl mounts. However, we're well aware of this and we'll do whatever it takes to make it right.

Chad also has the original box in his possession, so hopefully they'll be able to reproduce the original packaging for these mounts. I can't think of a better presentation to collectors than having the original packaging reproduced and including the 4 receiver screws and Allen key. The original mounts were just wrapped in a piece of tissue paper, which doesn't do much to protect the mount. Do you guys want to see the reproduction mounts wrapped in tissue palm like the originals or do you guys prefer a more secure method that protects the reproduction mount inside the reproduction box? The mounts could be wrapped in tissue and then have some custom foam padding included, but I'm not sure if this is what everyone wants or how much it would add to the pricing. Just like the other topics, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

This is all I can think of right now, and I'm sure I'll have more to add later in another post. Chad and his guys at LRI are working extremely hard on this project and I have complete faith in them. They have an amazing shop with the necessary equipment/machines to make perfect reproductions of these Unertl mounts, but there is still a few things that need to be decided. That's why I made this post and why I'm looking for some feedback from collectors and potentially buyers.

If you made it to the end of this long post, thank you very much for reading it! We look forward to hearing what you guys think and we're excited to finally have reproduction Unertl mounts available to collectors! Please ask any questions in this thread and either Chad or I will have an answer for you. I hope you guys are as excited about these reproduction Unertl mounts as we are!

 

[Belvedere]

Personally I like the idea of a one piece mount myself. Maybe put small spot welds on them to have that look. Last four of serial number is also a good add on item. And the gray ghost look as you put it is my favorite. All a win win for me. But no matter what the group decides or how LRI decides I'll be happy.

 

[Jrb572]

Personally I like the idea of a one piece mount myself. Maybe put small spot welds on them to have that look. Last four of serial number is also a good add on item. And the gray ghost look as you put it is my favorite. All a win win for me. But no matter what the group decides or how LRI decides I'll be happy.

Spot welds are not supposed to be like the Crap TMA mounts. It is supposed to be very faint and barely noticeable

 

[D_TROS]

IN for one

 

[Belvedere]

Spot welds are not supposed to be like the Crap TMA mounts. It is supposed to be very faint and barely noticeable

True. My idea is they’ll have a little something other than a smooth one piece look. Wasn’t looking for giant blobs. I think Ryan has enough mounts that show them.

 

[LRI]

Status: Base fundamentals are modeled.

Now for the ring package... I have a solution. More on that in a minute. I have to model up the rings first. I'm more or less updating this post in real time so bear with me.

 

[Jrb572]

Yes I would like the be able to add my last four on the mount
I like the idea of making the machining look old
I think the box is an awesome idea if it doesn’t add a shit to to the cost.

 

[deltawiskey]

I'm in for 1 or 2 no matter what!
My preference is a 1-piece mount and don't bother trying to copy the original machining irregularities, manufacture them to modern machine capabilities.
To all involved in this project, Thank you very much for making these!!!
DW

 

[BEJ762]

I agree with deltawiskey. I will add, I don't care about a box. These belong on a rifle getting used, not sitting in a box. Plus a box is another thing to store, which is why I usually throw them out.

 

[LRI]

Here's where I'm at thus far, and I'll share what I plan to do about the rings attaching to the base.

These rings begin life on a lathe. They are profiled and parted off. Then it's vise work and pretty simple. My guess is the upper and lower portion of the ring is made all at once. The two are then drilled/tapped for the clamp screws, followed by a parting saw to create the top and bottom halves. Screw them together, poke a hole, and call it a day. Easy enough. I've modeled a couple of variants of the ring pack now. A "modeling" version and a lathe op variant are shown here. Basically, you add the thickness of the saw blade to the lathe op so that when you part them off, the removed kerf brings the two pieces back into a concentric-looking ring. This is then followed up by poking the hole and the stuff on the bottom.

From what I can tell, Unertl machined pockets in the base with an opposing stub on the ring's bottom side. The two were then soldered or brazed together. Cool, but failures did happen. The rings appear as though they are too tall. This is intended as I modeled extra material on the bottom for what comes next...

What I'm going to do is thread mill a 1/2-28 or 32-pitch thread into the top of the base. I'll make opposing threads on the ring package. The two parts will screw together. Because I am thread milling, I have divine intervention on where (clock position) the threads begin on either part. This is so that they can screw together tight enough to gain a purchase while not being so overly tight that they distort or fail to time up properly. Getting it right will take a little fussing, but it's very doable after some practice. The parts screwed into each other, I'll saddle a pin across the bores of the rings and snug it all up so they clock properly. Now is when I'll get out the induction coil and sweat the two together. I will poke the hole for the optic a few thousandths undersize and finish them on my hone. This will ensure they are coaxial, round, and of good surface finish so that optics aren't being chewed up. -On that note, I had a lengthy discussion with Ryan about leaving the ID bore of the ring "toothy," as many of the originals are a bit rough. I will make this one departure as chewing up expensive glass isn't a good idea.

As a final, the receiver in the model is a "virgin" M700. I have several variants of this already set up with the double radius and the notch up front. I went with this to ensure there's no conflict with anything down the road. I'll add the relevant features later.

 

[corsairpilot62]

Awesome! Any chance for a lefty version?

 

[Bender]

So, down the rabbit hole, we go on this. If we take a big (BIG) step back and look at this thing, some small but key details reveal themselves. Diving a bit further, I start to think about the gun industry as a whole and how it has been rather cottage for a very, very long time.

If you can, consider the 1970s and 80s when this part was made. CNC manufacturing was an asset obtainable only by companies with big pockets and huge work statements to solve. Guns barely scratched into that surface. Let alone, little shitbox parts like a scope and ring set made by a very small optics company. (I say that with great affection) I'm about 99.99% sure this base was originally made on manual equipment. The dead giveaway to me is the corner fillets. (inside and outside radius features) They are not tangent to the flat surfaces they mate with.

I'll try to paint this picture a little more. Draw a 2-dimensional box on a sheet of paper. Now imagine a tool following along that geometry with the tool on the left side of the line on the paper. Regardless of how big or small the tool is, 90 degrees' worth of the circumference will engage the part at each inside corner, whereas a much smaller portion would typically be used when running along the side of a straight wall. When the tool bites into that corner, it will try to do a few different or combinations of bad things. Chatter, push-off, or gouge are the three most likely.

In this photo, we see gouge and a trace of chatter. The gouge is evident by the well-defined line-looking feature just to the right of my pencil lead. The trace appearance of diagonal lines in the corner fillet shows the chatter.

Without trying to sound arrogant or cocky, stuff like this is what I generally go to great lengths to avoid. A modern machine/software, and a basic understanding of what is going on, makes inclusions like this very easy to avoid. I'd lay a healthy wager that what Unertl did was take a 1/4" dia tool and chew this profile out on an angled fixture in a vertical knee-type mill. When the guy doing the work got to the corner, he stopped in the Y axis, locked the table gib, then started moving the X to the next position. He reversed the process and finished by coming back out in Y. Because it's a manual machine, he conventional milled instead of climb cut. Climb-milling steel on a manual is a good way to break tools and scrap parts. (for those wondering what that is or means, the internet will show you)

If I were programming this from a blank sheet, I would rough it out with the biggest, most aggressive tool I can realistically fit into the feature. I would then use a much smaller diameter tool to finish. This way, I let the software/machine create the inside radius (arc) features while maintaining a consistent amount of tool engagement in the material. That is what I would do to avoid gouging the snot out of a part.

So, armed with that knowledge, I am faced with a decision. Just how Period correct looking am I going to go with this?

Another example:

These two corner features were made with the part standing up on edge (like shown in the pic) and then running a radius cutter across it. If we look closely at the top edge, it's not tangent. The tool was left a little shallow in the Z axis depth to ensure that it didn't cut too deep and gouge the piss out of the front edge of the base. With a modern machining center you wouldn't have to do this because it'd be profiled using a single tool. It's known as a "blend line."

So the question I am faced with again: Use best practice, or do I intentionally screw this up a little so that it appears like it was made before some of you reading this were even born. My plan is to emulate what you see here. I can create these small errors in the base model of the part and set up my toolpaths so that they goof this up a little.

My main objective here is to point some of this out so that if you buy one from me, you understand the reason/intent.

More to follow. . .

Thanks for lookin.

Your level of detail plus your explanation to us retards is second to none. Years ago we talked on the phone about other business and we got off on a tangent about that wood stock you made and how you had to program the chatter marks out of the wood grain because of tool bounce.

Straight up gun slut porn. Thank you.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Just speaking for the historical community… hoping you will put some indelible marks in a discreet location so these can never be resold as “original!”

Love to see this (these, really) projects come together. But also don’t want to have folks a few years down the road trying to figure out if they are buying “live or Memorex.”

Just a quick suggestion. Totally amazing to see these come into being!

Sirhr

 

[nikonNUT]

Just speaking for the historical community… hoping you will put some indelible marks in a discreet location so these can never be resold as “original!”

Love to see this (these, really) projects come together. But also don’t want to have folks a few years down the road trying to figure out if they are buying “live or Memorex.”

Just a quick suggestion. Totally amazing to see these come into being!

Sirhr

This is a strong selling point for using the power of the CNC tool path to "not" have the mismatches ("witness marks ) so that a dedicated copy can be produced, have proper dimensions and tolerances BUT can't be sold as NOS. More homage and less exact copy but still 99.9999999% identical to the original. If a box is included I would think some sort of water mark or tamper feature to differentiate from a "real" box (I have no idea how many exsist). All for the goal of having an amazing duplicate that can't be passed off by unscrupulous individuals as OEM. Just thinking out loud.

 

[corsairpilot62]

I know this is a long post, but I hope everyone thinking about buying ine of these reproduction Unertl mounts will read it. There is some detailed information about the mounts and how they can be reproduced. We're also looking for some feedback on a few characteristics of the repro mounts. LRI is going to do their absolute best to make these amazing replicas and it's important to know what collectors think about the decisions/options involved with making the repro mounts.

This is an awesome project and I've been waiting years to help get repro mounts intolerance the hands of collectors. A few years ago I started getting quotes from various shops, but the cost was too high and I wasn't sure if I'd be able to get the exact product I wanted. So, I was never able to get a project like this up and running.

A few weeks ago I found out that LRI was making reproduction XM3 parts and they looked perfect! I reached out to Chad Dixon to see if he'd be interested in doing a run of Unertl mounts. He was extremely happy to make them and we started discussing various methods of how to produce the mounts. After talking to Chad, I knew that he was the right person for the job and that he would be able to make an extremely accurate reproduction.

A week or so ago I mailed him 3 original USMC Unertl mounts and an original USMC welded Redfield 40X mount. The dimensions for the repro mounts will be taken from the new old stock condition Unertl mount, and then specs can be verified with the 2 other used Unertl mounts. A new condition mount is needed for this product because used mounts were modified by the 2112's when they were fit to the M40A1 rifles.

The modifications were mainly on the 2 lugs on the underside of the Unertl mount, but blasting, refinishing, welding, etc. on the used mounts can also change the specs very slightly. For the used mounts, the Marines would test fit a mount to a rifle, then file the lugs on the underside to fit the slots in the receiver. This means that used Unertl mounts will each have different specs, since they were hand fit to each receiver. By using an original new condition mount, Chad will be able to produce reproductions that have the original specs and can be modified to fit the slots on a receiver. If someone took specs from a used mount to make reproductions, it will run the risk of possibility being a loose fit in the receiver cutouts. Using the original specs on the new condition mount essentially adds a little bit more metal to the lugs, which can then be hand fit to the receiver cutouts. That will ensure a very tight fit, as originally intended.

Using a new old stock mount also gives us the exact exterior dimensions. The Marines never really modified the exterior, but sometimes the Unertl mounts were refinished. The blasting and possibly sanding in preparation for refinishing will change the specs very slightly. The 2112's had to remove the original finish and any rust/pitting before refinishing the mounts. It's pretty much a non-issue, these would be extremely minute changes to the surfaces, but we're going fo the best possible end product and we need the original specs. Sometimes the Marines had to use tiny spot welds to keep the rings in place. With an original new condition mount, we don't have to worry about any modifications such as resetting the ring lowers into the base.

This is an extraordinarily unique opportunity to create reproduction Unertl mounts using the specs from a new condition USMC mount. I only know of 2 or 3 of these new old stock mounts still in existence (this mount being one of those 2 or 3 known). The guy in California claimed to have used a new old stock Unertl mount for his reproductions, but with the lies and other issues involved with that individual, we can't truly be sure that he took specs from a new mount. And even if he did use a new condition mount, he purposefully "flawed" them, so that he could tell the difference between his mounts and original ones. That means the reproduction mounts LRI is creating could be the only repro mounts ever created with 100% correct specs that were taken directly from a new condition Unertl mount! That is something extraordinary and it's exactly what collectors/clone builders have been dreaming of for a long time!

Another reason for sending the used mounts is because LRI can discreetly remove some of the finish and access the raw steel. I don't want to have that done to the mount that's in new condition, since it would greatly devalue that extremely rare piece of history. The used mounts are already worn and have marks on them, so adding a new mark isn't a big deal. We want to access the raw steel beneath the finish, so that LRI can test the metal and find out exactly what steel alloy Unertl used on these mounts! That's definitely going the extra mile with these reproductions!

We know that the steel alloy used on the original Unertl mounts had a higher chrome content or something like that. This made it difficult for the surface finish to stay in place, which is why used mounts tend to show a lot of wear. We know that collectors want the most accurate reproduction they can get, so a small detail like this is extremely important. The finish might not look the best and/or it could wear down more easily with extended heavy use (dragging around in the field, painting then stripping then painting again, etc.), but that's how the original mounts were. If a buyer wants a more durable finish or something that could look more clean/uniform, they could always send it out for cerakoting (but I doubt anyone will do that).

The finish on the original mounts is very unique and it's due to the steel composition. I hope collectors are excited about this aspect of the reproduction mounts, since it's another step that can be taken in order to make them that much closer to the originals. Collectors/clone builders can also wear down this finish and create the "gray ghost" aesthetics of the heavily used M40A1's we see in old photos. Bare metal scopes, mounts, receivers, barrels, bottom metal, trigger guards and sling swivels look absolutely amazing on the A1 rifles and a few clone builders have sought out this exact look for their build. Having the original steel alloy and finish will help with this endeavor, and it will allow people to exactly replicate the gray ghost look on their own clones.

Even though the used mounts have been slightly modified, we can still use them for valuable data. One of the mounts I sent to LRI has the last 4 digits of the serial number from the receiver it was originally attached to. This shows us how the mounts were marked, where they were marked and the size/font of the numbers used on the original stamp. I've run an idea by Chad, and I think it would be a great idea if LRI could offer a serial number marking service when people buy these mounts off their website. I've discussed the characteristics of the repro Unertl mounts with quite a few people over the years and one of the first questions I always get is whether or not they can have their last 4 digits of their rifle's serial number added to the mount.

Here's what I was thinking. Possibility have a drop down menu on the product page that will allow buyers to add their serial number to the mount. Buyers will have the choice of a mounts with no numbers or for a small fee, LRI can custom stamp their last 4 digits in the correct location with the correct size/font numbers. If a buyer selects the marking option, a notes box will appear and the buyer can enter in the 4 digits they want stamped on their mount. This is probably the easiest way to handle this custom option, but this also means that the buyer needs to be 100% certain about the information they entered.

If the buy enters in the wrong digits by accident, there won't really be any recourse for fixing it once it's stamped. LRI can't just weld up the wrong numbers and restamp the mount. The weld would probably show through the new finish and it would cost more time/money. If the mount is stamped with the numbers provided, there will probably have to be a no return policy on it (obviously if the fault were on LRI's end, they'd make it right, I have no doubt in my mind about their amazing customer service). Maybe there's a solution to reduce the chances of entering the wrong number into the online form. Lots of places require a password to be entered in twice, to ensure that the user enters the correct information. Maybe LRI could do the same and require the buyer to enter in the 4 digit serial number twice. That redundancy might help decrease any mistakes and help ensure that everyone is getting exactly what they ordered.

What do you guys think about a custom serial number service for these reproduction Unertl mounts? Would anyone here be interested in such an option?

Chad and I have also been discussing the possibility of making these mounts out of 1 piece of steel. The original Unertl mounts and reproductions have always had a point of failure in the mount's construction. This failure is with how the ring lowers are attached to the base and how they are secured. On the original mounts, the ring lowers were attached to the base by brazing them in place (or something like that, my terminology might not be correct). The point is that the ring lowers can sometimes come loose and the only solution has been to weld them in place. The 2112's would sometimes use tiny spot welds on the original USMC Unertl mounts when the rings started coming loose. The repro mounts from California have a few large disgusting welds that keep the ring lowers in place, since they aren't even brazed in place.

We've discussed the possibility of doing a 1 piece mount for a few reasons. The first reason is pretty obvious, a 1 piece mount would never suffer any of the failures that the original mounts qnd other reproduction mounts have suffered. A 1 piece mount can also be used as a way to help distinguish the reproduction mounts from the original USMC mounts. If you were able to use something like an X-ray to scan the mounts, it would immediately show that they're 1 piece and not original. This will help prevent people from passing them off as the real deal, and it wouldn't destroy the value of the original USMC Unertl mounts. This is definitely a more difficult option and I'm not even sure it can be done. However, if anyone is able to pull it off, my money is on Chad and his guys at LRI! They have a few 5-axis machines, which might be able to handle an advanced design like this.

What do you guys think about the 1 piece vs 3 piece mount? A 1 piece mount won't be exactly original, but it will be much much stronger and you'll never have any issues with it. A 3 piece mount (base and 2 ring lowers) would be 100% correct, but it could have issues like the originals did. There could be other methods to attaching the ring lowers if a 3 piece mount is desired, I'm sure LRI could discreetly weld them to the base on the underside of the base. In addition to the original style of brazing, that could solve the problem of rings coming loose from the base. I personally think we should try to do a 1 piece base, but we'd like some feedback from collectors and potential buyers on this issue. Even though we're shooting for as much originality as possible with these repro mounts, we also want to avoid any potential issues with their construction. A 1 piece mount would still have all the same exterior specs as the originals, it would just be a stronger product.

Whether or not the reproduction mounts are 1 piece or 3 piece, the ring tops will be matched to the ring lowers. The rings can be discreetly marked on the flats where they connect with each other, so that people will know how the rings are supposed to line up. Another consideration to take into account is how the rings look when properly attached to a Unertl MST-100 scope. Original rings on the Unertl mounts come together quite nicely when torqued down on the scope tube. Other reproduction mounts like the ones USO made a long time ago have a slight gap between the ring top and lower pieces when attached to the Unertl scope. This is something that we want to avoid, we want to replicate the original look, even when it comes to attaching the mount to the scope. I don't think anyone else has ever truly taken this into consideration when making replica Unertl mounts. However, we're well aware of this and we'll do whatever it takes to make it right.

Chad also has the original box in his possession, so hopefully they'll be able to reproduce the original packaging for these mounts. I can't think of a better presentation to collectors than having the original packaging reproduced and including the 4 receiver screws and Allen key. The original mounts were just wrapped in a piece of tissue paper, which doesn't do much to protect the mount. Do you guys want to see the reproduction mounts wrapped in tissue palm like the originals or do you guys prefer a more secure method that protects the reproduction mount inside the reproduction box? The mounts could be wrapped in tissue and then have some custom foam padding included, but I'm not sure if this is what everyone wants or how much it would add to the pricing. Just like the other topics, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

This is all I can think of right now, and I'm sure I'll have more to add later in another post. Chad and his guys at LRI are working extremely hard on this project and I have complete faith in them. They have an amazing shop with the necessary equipment/machines to make perfect reproductions of these Unertl mounts, but there is still a few things that need to be decided. That's why I made this post and why I'm looking for some feedback from collectors and potentially buyers.

If you made it to the end of this long post, thank you very much for reading it! We look forward to hearing what you guys think and we're excited to finally have reproduction Unertl mounts available to collectors! Please ask any questions in this thread and either Chad or I will have an answer for you. I hope you guys are as excited about these reproduction Unertl mounts as we are!

@USMCSGT0331 @LongRifles Inc.

Definitely like the idea for the drop down menu for a serial number.

Another option for the 1 piece/ 2 piece. I think another repro mount did it this way. But what about a base mount that the rings dovetail into. (Like leupold rem 700 front scope mount on a 2 piece set up)

I know it will be great. If you do a lefty put me down for one!

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Here's where I'm at thus far and I'll share what I plan to do about the rings attaching to the base.

These rings begin life on a lathe. They are profiled and parted off. Then it's vise work and pretty simple. My guess is the upper and lower portion of the ring is made all at once. The two are then drilled/tapped for the clamp screws followed by a parting saw to create the top and bottom halves. Screw them together, poke a hole, and call it a day. Easy enough. I've modeled a couple variants of the ring pack now. A "modeling" version shown here and a lathe op variant. Basically, you add the thickness of the saw blade to the lathe op so that when you part them off, the kerf of the saw blade being removed brings the two pieces back into a concentric looking ring. This is then followed up by poking the hole and the stuff on the bottom.

From what I can tell, Unertl machined pockets and an opposing stub was created on the bottom side of the ring. The two were then soldered or brazed together. Cool, but failures did happen. The rings appear as though they are too tall. This is intended as I modeled extra material on the bottom for what comes next...

View attachment 8184818

What I'm going to do is thread mill a 1/2-28 or 32 pitch thread into the top of the base. I'll make opposing threads on the ring package. The two parts will screw together. Because I am thread milling I have divine intervention on where (clock position) the threads begin on either part. This is so that they can screw together tight enough to gain a purchase while not being so overly tight that they distort or fail to time up properly. It'll take a little fussing to get it right, but its very doable after a bit of practice. The parts screwed into each other, I'll saddle a pin across the bores of the rings and snug it all up so they clock properly. Now is when I'll get out the induction coil and sweat the two together. I'm going to poke the hole for the optic a few thousandths undersize and finish them on my hone. This will ensure they are coaxial, round, and of good surface finish so that optics aren't being chewed up. -On that note, I had a lengthy discussion with Ryan about leaving the ID bore of the ring "toothy" as a lot of the originals are a bit rough as well. This will be one departure I make as chewing up expensive glass isn't a good idea.

As a final. The receiver in the model is a "virgin" M700. I have several variants of this already setup with the double radius and the notchup front. I went with this just to make sure there's no confliction with anything down the road. I'll add the relevant features later.


View attachment 8184822

This post is amazing, lots of very intricate details about finding a way to attach rings to the base. Chad and I had a long discussion about the mounts, and it appears that he discovered some new information about these Unertl mounts! He noticed a few interesting things and now we think that the rings used could actually be Redfield front rings that have the dovetail bottom modified and turned into a post that fits the base! This would make sense, since just buying rings and modifying them would be the path of least resistance for Unertl. Chad has an amazing eye for detail and was pointing out stuff that I've never seen discussed, it was like seeing these mounts for the very first time and learning about them! He's going to continue the analysis and when it's all said and done, he'll have made some new and fantastic contributions to our knowledge base!

After discussing these characteristics, I decided that he needs a few more original USMC Unertl mounts to look at, so this week I'm going to send him 2 more original Unertl mounts. 5 original mounts is a huge sample size for a project like this, but we think it's necessary to analyze everything, even the smallest detail that is often overlooked. He's an expert with this kind of work, so I'd rather have him look at the artifacts in person. Chad is still using the new old stock mount for the repro mount's specs, but the other 4 mounts can give us insight into other details. Later on he plans to compare measurements taken from all 5 mounts to see if a tolerance range can be established. LRI has the ability to hold extremely tight tolerances, but a baseline still needs to be established, and it's just flat out interesting research for us M40 nerds, lol.

Right now the best option might not be a 1 piece mount, because the mount would be missing the nice edge between the base and rings. We want to keep the original look as close to 100% as possible. Chad wrote in his post above that threading/timing the rings to the base, and then brazing them in place will keep everything together. Even if something happens to the brazing material, the rings will still be solidly held in place due to the threading and being properly torqued.

I hope I'm explaining this correctly, Chad can fill you guys in on details if I messed anything up here. I'm a babbling idiot when it come to these details, whereas he knows absolutely everything involved with analyzing the original artifacts and producing perfect replicas. I have complete trust and confidence that LRI will be making Unertl mounts that might be better than the originals, but will look exactly like them. I trust him enough to mail him 5 original Unertl mounts and a few welded 40X mounts, which should show how serious we're taking this project and how great the replica mounts will be. It's pretty exciting to learn new things about the original mounts and to finally see exact copies being made! I can't thank Chad and the rest of the guys at LRI enough for making this happen!

 

[USMCSGT0331]

We really appreciate the responses from everyone who has commented! Thank you!

There's a few machine marks on the original mounts, but LRI will clean up the originals so that they look great. That will also be a way to distinguish the original mounts from the reproductions. Interestingly, this is exactly how the reproduction M14 SSR mounts were made. Those rails also lack the tool marks and they are a better looking product.

There won't be any visible welds on the reproduction mounts. It was pretty rare for the 2112's to add any welds, but when they did, the welds were literally the size of a pinhead or smaller. They are the smallest spot welds I've ever seen, which is the exact opposite of the large nasty welds that are on an infamous reproduction mount. I can post photos and details about these miniscule welds later, just in case anyone wants to add them to their mount. LRI won't be doing these tiny welds because that's not how the mounts were originally made and the new repro mounts will be extremely well put together and will never require any additional work like spot welds. The photos and information I can provide on some USMC welds is just for research purposes, they won't be part of this project.

We do plan on having some type of security in place, so that collectors can identify and distinguish originals and reproductions. The mounts will have LRI's information on the bottom of the mount where it can't be seen when attached to a receiver. They might also be serial numbered or have some other features to help identify them repros. A few collectors have said that they don't want any markings visible on the underside of the mount when it's attached to a receiver. So, the mounts will probably be marked on the areas that contact the front and rear bridge of the receiver, and not marked in the center of the mount which is visible when looking up into the port area of the receiver.

We're keeping the external specs 100% to the original Unertl mount, they won't be "flawed" like other reproduction mounts. If you guys can think of any other security measures that we can add to the reproduction mounts, please post them here and it will be taken into consideration. If the repro mounts are made with ring lowers that screw into the base, this method of construction will show up on an X-ray. If possible, Chad is going to have 1 or more of the original Unertl mounts X-rayed, which will show all of us the original construction methods and will set an absolute standard for comparisons if anyone chooses to X-ray a reproduction mount. I hope he's able to do this, since it will provide valuable information about the artifact's history and the scans can be used to determine if other scanned mounts are authentic.

Since LRI is going to great lengths to reproduce these Unertl mounts, it makes sense that replica boxes are also made. I know that some guys don't care about the packaging, but other collectors will really enjoy having a complete set with the box, screws, and Allen key. I don't think that this will have a drastic impact on the price, but this is still a valid consideration. Maybe LRI will be able to have an original packaging option for buyers. Some collectors can get everything, and some collectors could save a few bucks by just getting the mount with correct screws and no reproduction packaging. I think at a minimum each repro mount should come with the proper screws to attach the mount to the receiver. The mounts will obviously come with screws holding the rings halves together, but I just want to mention that so no one has any confusion as to which screws are being discussed.

I'm not sure how many original boxes still exist, it might just be the one I have and possibly 1 or 2 more in private collections. I have no idea, but I can honestly say that they're rare enough that anyone with an original box won't have to worry about any reproductions effecting the value of the originals. I doubt a newly produced box could be passed off as an original, but it might be possible to age it and make it look like it's frim the 1980's. We can definitely add some type of security feature to the box if this is a concern. Maybe we can stamp the interior with LRI's information. I just don't want to change much or even anything on the exterior, since we're shooting for a faithful reproduction. Let us know what you guys think and any ideas that you might have. He's some photos of the new old stock Unertl mount with it's original box:

Please let us know what other questions, concerns, ideas or feedback you guys might have. We want to do this project correctly and we value the information we get from collectors/clone builders. You guys are going to be receiving the final product, so please let us know what we can do to make you happy with this product. It definitely needs to be as original as possible, but as you can see from the see discussions there's still decisions to be made. Everyone who is posting here is participating in this project and everything you say is being taken into consideration.

There could be some other options as well. Maybe a cool instruction sheet can be included with the mounts, even though the original mounts didn't have instructions (I've never seen any type of instruction sheet from Unertl, so I'm assuming they never did one or they just don't exist anymore). Maybe LRI will be able to do a limited edition run of left handed reproduction mounts. Unertl never made left handed mounts, since all of the USMC M40A1's are for right handed shooters, but this would be a great variation to have available to the left handed collectors/clone builders in our community. Chad will have to make a decision on this one, but let us know if you'd be interested in a left handed mount. Like I said before, your feedback is extremely important and everything is being taken into consideration. Maybe LRI could get a few pieces of foam for the packaging, so the mounts are better protected (originals only had a piece of tissue paper wrapped around the mount). Maybe you have a unique idea that hasn't been discussed, please post it in this thread!

Once this Unertl mount reproduction project is complete, LRI will probably be looking for other interesting items to make or possibly reproduce. Please keep this thread on topic with only discussions about the reproduction Unertl mounts, but start thinking of ither products you'd like to see in the future. I'm only bringing this up because I've had multiple people ask me what's next. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for that question. If anyone is interested in what project could be next, please start a new thread with that topic and we can have a discussion about what everyone would like to see made or reproduced next.

 

[Jrb572]

The winged block on the box. Is that Unertl‘s logo or just what happens to be on the box?

 

[pmclaine]

The winged block on the box. Is that Unertl‘s logo or just what happens to be on the box?

I think it's a generic "air mail" box.

May be a pallet of NOS ones sitting in ULines warehouse.

It is nicely done, two piece looks like paper art glued over the cardboard.......America when it gave a shit, at its best.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

The winged block on the box. Is that Unertl‘s logo or just what happens to be on the box?

That's just the design for the box, not the Unertl logo. If you look closely at my photos of the box, on one of the sides it has the company name. The box for the Unertl mount appears to have been made by a company called MailMaster (located in Massachusetts), and this specific box size is their catalog item number B46.

Unertl used a prism logo from before WWII all the way up to about 2008 (or whatever year they became defunct). Check out the photos below to see original Unertl scopes with their prism logo. The first photo is a Unertl MST-100 from about 1982, the second photo is a Unertl 14x scope from sometime in the mid-1900's (maybe 1960's or something, you'd have to see if there's and serial number and date information for these scopes online).

Unertl used this prism logo on just about everything. However, they never used the prism logo on the WWII USMC SNIPER 8x scopes or the USMC M40A1 scope mounts. People have tried to fake both of these items and they've tried to incorporate the Unertl prism logo, but that just makes them blatantly obvious fakes. It's extremely well known that the Unertl logo wasn't used on those two items, so it's very strange that forgers would even bother using the prism logo on those two fake items. Hopefully this information is helpful, please let me know if you have any questions or if you need help verifying the authenticity of an original Unertl scope or mount.

 

[Jrb572]

That's just the design for the box, not the Unertl logo. If you look closely at my photos of the box, on one of the sides it has the company name. It appears to have been made by Mail Master in Massachusetts and this specific box size is their catalog item number B46. I tried searching for the company online, but couldn't find anything about this company.

However, there is a Mail Master company that sells plastic mailboxes, which can be purchased online from Home Depot, Walmart and other places. I have no idea if this is the same company that made the Unertl boxes, but the Mail Master company might still exist and it could be worthwhile trying to contact them to see if they have any information.

Unertl used a prism logo from before WWII all the way up to about 2008 (or whatever year they became defunct). Check out the photos below to see original Unertl scopes with their prism logo. The first photo is a Unertl MST-100 from about 1982, the second photo is a Unertl 14x scope from sometime in the mid-1900's (maybe 1960's or something, you'd have to see if there's and serial number and date information for these scopes online).

Unertl used this prism logo on just about everything. However, they never used the prism logo on the WWII USMC SNIPER 8x scopes or the USMC M40A1 scope mounts. People have tried to fake both of these items and they've tried to incorporate the Unertl prism logo, but that just makes them blatantly obvious fakes. It's extremely well known that the Unertl logo wasn't used on those two items, so it's very strange that forgers would even bother using the prism logo on those 2 fake items.

I knew what the logo on the scope looked like just wasn’t sure what was on the box. I seen the stamp on the box but couldn’t read it.

 

[pmclaine]

Repair/Mailing Box

Mail Master Mailing Boxes with Wire fastener offer a great solution for shipping your products in a variety of sizes. These boxes also offer a nice alternative for storing various products. These boxes are offered in White and select styles in kraft.

www.masonbox.com

 

[Jrb572]

Repair/Mailing Box

Mail Master Mailing Boxes with Wire fastener offer a great solution for shipping your products in a variety of sizes. These boxes also offer a nice alternative for storing various products. These boxes are offered in White and select styles in kraft.

www.masonbox.com

Those suckers are pricey

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Repair/Mailing Box

Mail Master Mailing Boxes with Wire fastener offer a great solution for shipping your products in a variety of sizes. These boxes also offer a nice alternative for storing various products. These boxes are offered in White and select styles in kraft.

www.masonbox.com

Well, there it is! We can just order the boxes from the company! Great find! There's probably slight differences, but this is it!

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Those suckers are pricey

Prices are for packages of 100 boxes, but probably still pricey for what they are. Really cool that they still exist!

 

[pmclaine]

That’s a nice little archival quality container.

Solid enough for airmail, separate applied artworks, wire sealing tabs to close.

CHYNA will make you a cheaper one.

 

[Jrb572]

Prices are for packages of 100 boxes, but probably still pricey for what they are. Really cool that they still exist!

Ah sorry should have clicked on them. I see $97.50 and thought I need to get in the box business if that’s a per box price.

 

[LRI]

In an effort to avoid these things ever being advertised as original, I'll whittle the shop initials on the bottom of the front receiver ring pad between the two screw holes.

 

[LRI]

Here's the initial model/assembly. The rings are now at the correct installed height.

 

[LRI]

Awesome! Any chance for a lefty version?

Transgender? You got it.

 

[corsairpilot62]

Transgender? You got it.


View attachment 8185257

Awesome! Thank you. Just got wired wrong upstairs. Lol.

 

[corsairpilot62]

We really appreciate the responses from everyone who has commented! Thank you!

There's a few machine marks on the original mounts, but LRI will clean up the originals so that they look great. That will also be a way to distinguish the original mounts from the reproductions. Interestingly, this is exactly how the reproduction M14 SSR mounts were made. Those rails also lack the tool marks and they are a better looking product.

There won't be any visible welds on the reproduction mounts. It was pretty rare for the 2112's to add any welds, but when they did, the welds were literally the size of a pinhead or smaller. They are the smallest spot welds I've ever seen, which is the exact opposite of the large nasty welds that are on an infamous reproduction mount. I can post photos and details about these miniscule welds later, just in case anyone wants to add them to their mount. LRI won't be doing these tiny welds because that's not how the mounts were originally made and the new repro mounts will be extremely well put together and will never require any additional work like spot welds. The photos and information I can provide on some USMC welds is just for research purposes, they won't be part of this project.

We do plan on having some type of security in place, so that collectors can identify and distinguish originals and reproductions. The mounts will have LRI's information on the bottom of the mount where it can't be seen when attached to a receiver. They might also be serial numbered or have some other features to help identify them repros. A few collectors have said that they don't want any markings visible on the underside of the mount when it's attached to a receiver. So, the mounts will probably be marked on the areas that contact the front and rear bridge of the receiver, and not marked in the center of the mount which is visible when looking up into the port area of the receiver.

We're keeping the external specs 100% to the original Unertl mount, they won't be "flawed" like other reproduction mounts. If you guys can think of any other security measures that we can add to the reproduction mounts, please post them here and it will be taken into consideration. If the repro mounts are made with ring lowers that screw into the base, this method of construction will show up on an X-ray. If possible, Chad is going to have 1 or more of the original Unertl mounts X-rayed, which will show all of us the original construction methods and will set an absolute standard for comparisons if anyone chooses to X-ray a reproduction mount. I hope he's able to do this, since it will provide valuable information about the artifact's history and the scans can be used to determine if other scanned mounts are authentic.

Since LRI is going to great lengths to reproduce these Unertl mounts, it makes sense that replica boxes are also made. I know that some guys don't care about the packaging, but other collectors will really enjoy having a complete set with the box, screws, and Allen key. I don't think that this will have a drastic impact on the price, but this is still a valid consideration. Maybe LRI will be able to have an original packaging option for buyers. Some collectors can get everything, and some collectors could save a few bucks by just getting the mount with correct screws and no reproduction packaging. I think at a minimum each repro mount should come with the proper screws to attach the mount to the receiver. The mounts will obviously come with screws holding the rings halves together, but I just want to mention that so no one has any confusion as to which screws are being discussed.

I'm not sure how many original boxes still exist, it might just be the one I have and possibly 1 or 2 more in private collections. I have no idea, but I can honestly say that they're rare enough that anyone with an original box won't have to worry about any reproductions effecting the value of the originals. I doubt a newly produced box could be passed off as an original, but it might be possible to age it and make it look like it's frim the 1980's. We can definitely add some type of security feature to the box if this is a concern. Maybe we can stamp the interior with LRI's information. I just don't want to change much or even anything on the exterior, since we're shooting for a faithful reproduction. Let us know what you guys think and any ideas that you might have. He's some photos of the new old stock Unertl mount with it's original box:

View attachment 8185181
View attachment 8185182
View attachment 8185183
View attachment 8185184
View attachment 8185185
View attachment 8185186View attachment 8185188
View attachment 8185189

Please let us know what other questions, concerns, ideas or feedback you guys might have. We want to do this project correctly and we value the information we get from collectors/clone builders. You guys are going to be receiving the final product, so please let us know what we can do to make you happy with this product. It definitely needs to be as original as possible, but as you can see from the see discussions there's still decisions to be made. Everyone who is posting here is participating in this project and everything you say is being taken into consideration.

There could be some other options as well. Maybe a cool instruction sheet can be included with the mounts, even though the original mounts didn't have instructions (I've never seen any type of instruction sheet from Unertl, so I'm assuming they never did one or they just don't exist anymore). Maybe LRI will be able to do a limited edition run of left handed reproduction mounts. Unertl never made left handed mounts, since all of the USMC M40A1's are for right handed shooters, but this would be a great variation to have available to the left handed collectors/clone builders in our community. Chad will have to make a decision on this one, but let us know if you'd be interested in a left handed mount. Like I said before, your feedback is extremely important and everything is being taken into consideration. Maybe LRI could get a few pieces of foam for the packaging, so the mounts are better protected (originals only had a piece of tissue paper wrapped around the mount). Maybe you have a unique idea that hasn't been discussed, please post it in this thread!

Once this Unertl mount reproduction project is complete, LRI will probably be looking for other interesting items to make or possibly reproduce. Please keep this thread on topic with only discussions about the reproduction Unertl mounts, but start thinking of ither products you'd like to see in the future. I'm only bringing this up because I've had multiple people ask me what's next. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for that question. If anyone is interested in what project could be next, please start a new thread with that topic and we can have a discussion about what everyone would like to see made or reproduced next.

Not to stray too far off topic. But what about repro simrad caps for said unertl mounts?

 

[Frank Green]

Transgender? You got it.


View attachment 8185257

I'd be in for a lefty mount and a righty mount!

Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels

 

[LRI]

Awesome! Thank you. Just got wired wrong upstairs. Lol.

I did too. It's been a curse my whole life.

Except for that one thing. You know...

lol.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Not to stray too far off topic. But what about repro simrad caps for said unertl mounts?

That's an excellent idea and that's definitely possible! Unfortunately, an original A1 Unertl simrad cap is one of the few pieces that I don't have in my collection, but I know a few people with them. IIRC, there were a few different styles, but we'll take what we can get if a friend send LRI an original simrad cap. Original USMC A1 simrad caps sell for about $3,000+, so it's a very expensive and very rare part to find.

The guy out in California tried making reproduction A1 simrad caps for his shitty reproduction Unertl mounts at some point. Unfortunately for anyone who bought one, it was hit or miss if the repro simrad cap would even line up with the screw holes on the repro Unertl mount! So, a lot of those repro simrad caps are completely unusable pieces of trash.

Thankfully for us, we have LRI to do our reproduction parts and Chad will go to great lengths to enable that everything is 100% perfect with the parts he makes! So, let me discuss the simrad caps with Chad and a few buddies that have original examples in their collections. I don't know if this is something that Chad would like to pursue after the repro Unertl mounts have been made, if he'd like to have an original A1 simrad cap or 2 on hand right now as he's working on the Unertl mounts.

If he has them on hand right now, it might be easier to make sure everything lines up perfectly and that they can be produced to exact specs. I think it might be a good idea to send him some original simrads asap, but ultimately that's his call on what he wants to do and when it should be done. All I know is that any repro A1 simrad caps made by LRI will turn out perfectly.

Thank you for bringing up the simrad caps! We're completely focused on the reproduction Unertl mounts right now, so it greatly helps us out when you guys bring up suggestions like this. Please keep the good ideas coming and I'll discuss the simrad caps with Chad when we talk later today.

 

[iceng]

Didnt they used to drown leftys at birth years ago ? *snigger*. Heh.

Nice work so far. I looked at the thread in style for the rings, and even one piece, however never planned a full production run, so for me the juice wasnt worth the squeeze. Yet...

As for quality of original parts. Definately hand (machine) made, id guessing gang milling of some weird setup, with some cool fixturing as thats how things were done in that era.
The part(s) i measured and ones i looked at online did have small differences visually, so im going to guess it was based on batches of parts before cutters were changed or even down to which operator was on the machine that day. Hard to know for sure. If i had 10 parts of known true origin i could nut out what the specs are, however 1 or 2, its much harder. Tolerances, wear on cutters, even coolant effects manuf.. etc.

 

[LRI]

Didnt they used to drown leftys at birth years ago ? *snigger*. Heh.

Nice work so far. I looked at the thread in style for the rings, and even one piece, however never planned a full production run, so for me the juice wasnt worth the squeeze. Yet...

As for quality of original parts. Definately hand (machine) made, id guessing gang milling of some weird setup, with some cool fixturing as thats how things were done in that era.
The part(s) i measured and ones i looked at online did have small differences visually, so im going to guess it was based on batches of parts before cutters were changed or even down to which operator was on the machine that day. Hard to know for sure. If i had 10 parts of known true origin i could nut out what the specs are, however 1 or 2, its much harder. Tolerances, wear on cutters, even coolant effects manuf.. etc.

There. I fixed it for you.

 

[iceng]

Hah. Perfect ! Even the right way up for his beastly meat handling arm !