If that was my rifle, I would want to know. I couldn't just slap in some tall rings and send it because that would irk the crap out of me not being correct but we are all different.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
M40A1 or M40A3 or M40A5
- Thread starter ChanceDoane
- Start date
If that was my rifle, I would want to know. I couldn't just slap in some tall rings and send it because that would irk the crap out of me not being correct but we are all different.
If you get really bored, measure the outside diameter of your rear receiver ring. It may be out of spec. I have been told that Remington's dimensions are all over the place. If it is, and it bothers you, it's probably easier to have the barrel turned ever so slightly to get clearance so you can use correct parts, as opposed to mess with the receiver.
Last edited:
Yes, .010 is exactly what I said on June 5th in earlier post on this problem,,, that's for the measurement ...
The only thing that bothers me is I can't get my scope mounted and get to the range,,, but,,, tomorrow is another day... will keep all up with the results of what I find...
I think that’s good news, if you’re measurement is the same as the one in my pic, then I think youre square.
M40A1 for me, for obvious reasons. Though I haven't had my hands on one in 24 years now. 
We need some love for the A3 here!
While the A1 is certainly sexier, I do really enjoy shooting the A3.
It might not be far for a lot of you guys but I was shooting steel at 1100 yards with it a few weeks ago...the farthest I have ever shot. It certainly would have been alot more challenging using the A1 with the MST 100!!
While the A1 is certainly sexier, I do really enjoy shooting the A3.
It might not be far for a lot of you guys but I was shooting steel at 1100 yards with it a few weeks ago...the farthest I have ever shot. It certainly would have been alot more challenging using the A1 with the MST 100!!
I like both the M40A1 and M40A3. The A1 is more like a carry hunting rifle to me and the A3 is more of a setup and shoot prone rifle. I have three rifles in M40A1 HTG stocks i use regularly for my Groundhog hunting rifles. I love that style of stock!
The stock is inletted for the Badger M5 so it is alittle big for the DD Ross. All tho i could make the DD Ross work with some bedding
Another picture from that day, Vintage Match Range 4
What bullet and powder do you use to match the dial ups?
Have the A1/A3/A5 all built at Quantico PWS. The A1 is the coolest, and it’s like at tank with the MST-100. That said, the A5 is suppressed, easier to shoot, and generally gets the mot range time.
In the early 1980'ies I built a M40 clone, later updated to M40A1, using components I could find in Europe.
I used the rifle for some time as a "working gun" as a sniper in the National Guard and privatly for hunting.
True to form I started with a Redfield 3-9 AT and later a T10.
However, none of these scopes were good enough for field use at the time. The T10 is a exellent scope for range use.
I upgraded the rifle with a Kahles ZF69 6x42 mounted in Redfield 26mm JR 4 screw rings making the whole rig bulletproof and with optic quality that is excellent even today. I sold the rifle 30 years ago but I still have the scope.
The ZF69 (introduced in 1969 on the Steyr SSG69) transformed the all round performance of my M40 at the time. Why this scope was not considered for the M40 in the US in the 1970'ies is beyond me except for the "not invented here" syndrome.
I used the rifle for some time as a "working gun" as a sniper in the National Guard and privatly for hunting.
True to form I started with a Redfield 3-9 AT and later a T10.
However, none of these scopes were good enough for field use at the time. The T10 is a exellent scope for range use.
I upgraded the rifle with a Kahles ZF69 6x42 mounted in Redfield 26mm JR 4 screw rings making the whole rig bulletproof and with optic quality that is excellent even today. I sold the rifle 30 years ago but I still have the scope.
The ZF69 (introduced in 1969 on the Steyr SSG69) transformed the all round performance of my M40 at the time. Why this scope was not considered for the M40 in the US in the 1970'ies is beyond me except for the "not invented here" syndrome.
I like the 6x ZF69 scopes, and wish I could find a nice 10x version of the ZF84, as I'd like to put it on an SSG-69, but I think the history of the M40A1 scope is a bit more complex. It wasn't so much as a 'not invented here' issue as it was this question - 'What manufacturer will help us make a truly unique USMC sniper scope with a crazy new reticle pattern ?' (....And we probably only need 600 or so of these scopes too). Not even Leupold at the time would make the USMC's requested modifications, even though their M8 scope (10X) was apparently found otherwise favorable.
The fact is that the USMC evaluated a several scopes in the 1977-1978 period when they updated the M40 to M40A1 specification. (Leupold M8, updated Redfield Widefield 3-9x, Weaver T10, an innovative RAND Systems Corporation 'dual-power' 3x & 9x scope, etc).
The issue was that the well-respected Officer in Charge (OIC) of the USMC Sniper School, Jack C. Cuddy, wanted to incorporate a very innovative reticle that was developed at the MTU (Marksman Training Unit), which was based on the milirad system for range estimations, without any moving parts, etc - and no commercial scope manufactures wanted to invest the time and effort to make a custom reticle for a small volume of USMC-specific sniper scopes...except for one small business based out of Pennsylvania - the John Unertl Optical Company. The owner, John Unertl Jr, spent a lot of time down at the USMC base in Quantico Virginia in the late 1970s, where he and the USMC sniper school developed THE transformative sniper scope reticle - the now famous Mil-Dot system. Attached are 3 excerpts from Peter Senich's excellent book, The One-Round War (1996), that describes the late 1970s collaboration. The scope's reticle was described in a January 1981 manual:
Perhaps if Kahles or Swarowski had been willing to fly some optical engineers over to the USA and work closely with the USMC Sniper Instructors/OIC in the late 1970s, history might have been different - but it John Unertl's gamble to work hand-in-hand to development a completely new and robust scope that was both 'Marine proof' and had a Mil-Dot reticle that changed history. Basically all 'modern' military sniper scopes since the 1980s equipped with Mil-Dot reticles, or today's 'Gen II' Mil-Dot reticles, can trace their roots back to the Unertl 10x USMC sniper scope developed in the late 1970s and first tested in 1980.
Again, I like the little ZG69 scope and wish I could find a nice ZF84 (10x version), but it should be noted that the USMC Unertl scopes were so strong, that when the USMC adopted the big 50 caliber Barnett M82 sniper rifles in the early 1990s, the Unertl company didn't need to do anything to the scope's construction other than change the marking on the BDC /elevation dial from 1000 yards (7.62 NATO) to 1800 yards - given the 50 BMG's extended range. They also marked the scopes '50 CAL' on the side (see pic #4), but otherwise they are the same as the M40A1 scopes. Whether or not a Kahles ZF69 scope could withstand the serious recoil forces of a 50 BMG sniper rifle is unknown, but the Unertl's did... Anyhow, my apologizes for the digression re all this history, but it is something I have read a lot about.
Attachments
Last edited:
Random Guy: Very interesting read.
For me it was just a case of "I need a better scope than the T10 for use in the field. What can I get ASAP over the counter".
The T10 was too fragile and had poor optic quality.
In Norway in the 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies shooters were used to order target scopes with custom reticles for moving target and field target competitions.
From USA shooters got Redfield scopes from Lee-Dot and Leupold from Premier. Dick Thomas of PR sold so many scopes to Scandinavia that he actually crossed the Atlantic to see what was going on.
Shooters also ordered custom reticles from European makers with short turn around time.
Pecar of Berlin/Germany was very special due to the fact that the scopes had quick change reticles and the shooters could install the reticles themselves.
If a shooter needed a new reticle he would just send a detailed drawing to Pecar and the reticle would be in the mailbox 6-8 weeks later.
I ordered several reticles from Pecar. The best I made, for me, was for military sharpshooting on popup targets (3-5 sec target visibility, no time for dialing) on ranges out to 700m with 146gr NATO ball. I had a 1moa 100m centered target dot, heavy side posts with 20moa spacing from center for lead on moving target and low light performance. Then I had ballistic dots below zero in the scope for 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700m. The dots were sized to match a russian helmet/head on target at each range so when a target popped up it was just a case of matching the correct dot to the head of the target and pull the trigger.
The Pecar scopes are FFP so what could possibly go wrong I won a few comps with this scope. ( side note, what's the point of having 1200yds range in a rifle with a dialing scope when an enemy pops up at 650 and kill you within 5 seconds? How do you handle dialing rigs wearing gas mask and ABC gear?)
Here's a QD reticle unit with std turrets and a chart std reticles. The unit could also be ordered with target turrets:
Hertel&Reuss, makers of the Weatherby Supreme scopes in the 60'ies, also delivered scopes with customer designed reticles on short notice. In the 70'ies they actually had a FFP 2.75-10X45 with a "Christmas tree" ballistic reticle eched on glass.
Pre year 2000 even Schmidt&Bender could install custom reticles for single customers with relatively quick turn around time.
Regarding the ruggedness of ZF69/84 I think they are rugged enough for .50 cal rifles. If I remember correctly the Swaro 10x42 was made for Barrett with a .50cal ballistic reticle. Of these scopes I think the ZF69 is the most rugged of all due to the very simple internals.
For me it was just a case of "I need a better scope than the T10 for use in the field. What can I get ASAP over the counter".
The T10 was too fragile and had poor optic quality.
In Norway in the 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies shooters were used to order target scopes with custom reticles for moving target and field target competitions.
From USA shooters got Redfield scopes from Lee-Dot and Leupold from Premier. Dick Thomas of PR sold so many scopes to Scandinavia that he actually crossed the Atlantic to see what was going on.
Shooters also ordered custom reticles from European makers with short turn around time.
Pecar of Berlin/Germany was very special due to the fact that the scopes had quick change reticles and the shooters could install the reticles themselves.
If a shooter needed a new reticle he would just send a detailed drawing to Pecar and the reticle would be in the mailbox 6-8 weeks later.
I ordered several reticles from Pecar. The best I made, for me, was for military sharpshooting on popup targets (3-5 sec target visibility, no time for dialing) on ranges out to 700m with 146gr NATO ball. I had a 1moa 100m centered target dot, heavy side posts with 20moa spacing from center for lead on moving target and low light performance. Then I had ballistic dots below zero in the scope for 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700m. The dots were sized to match a russian helmet/head on target at each range so when a target popped up it was just a case of matching the correct dot to the head of the target and pull the trigger.
The Pecar scopes are FFP so what could possibly go wrong
I won a few comps with this scope. ( side note, what's the point of having 1200yds range in a rifle with a dialing scope when an enemy pops up at 650 and kill you within 5 seconds? How do you handle dialing rigs wearing gas mask and ABC gear?)Here's a QD reticle unit with std turrets and a chart std reticles. The unit could also be ordered with target turrets:
Hertel&Reuss, makers of the Weatherby Supreme scopes in the 60'ies, also delivered scopes with customer designed reticles on short notice. In the 70'ies they actually had a FFP 2.75-10X45 with a "Christmas tree" ballistic reticle eched on glass.
Pre year 2000 even Schmidt&Bender could install custom reticles for single customers with relatively quick turn around time.
Regarding the ruggedness of ZF69/84 I think they are rugged enough for .50 cal rifles. If I remember correctly the Swaro 10x42 was made for Barrett with a .50cal ballistic reticle. Of these scopes I think the ZF69 is the most rugged of all due to the very simple internals.
Last edited:
Took these two pictures yesterday.
@ArmedGinger, that rifle is dead sexy and congrats on the moose!
I have to avoid the vintage section and delay builds until I’m old, retired and can afford these sweet throwback guns!
I have to avoid the vintage section and delay builds until I’m old, retired and can afford these sweet throwback guns!
I look at the A1 as the last stripped "Man Hunting" rifle.
Its not the way it worked but I think of it as the man and his spotter drawing their weapons out of the rack and heading out to set up a hide and hunt. Soft cover, water, ammo - light and fast - scout snipers, fighting Marines.
The A3 to me was the start of the "system" era.........deployment kit in hard case, an accountable armory inventory of spares to maintain the system and for inspection only, not to actually be used, defined operational expectations, you will be in uniform of the day prescribed by senior unit commander - junk on the bunk prior to patrol - operational assets, part of the machine.
Some unrealistic romance in the first case - All respect to Carlos Hathcock but I have my suspicions his book was enhanced to some extent - still snipers in that day had a bit more autonomy due to the problem the art was not fully understood and there was a bit of bias against them, red headed step children in some commands.
Today respected for their ability to be the key to changing a tactical situation for the better but over managed, not given as much autonomy, others think they know their job better than them, a possible liability that could destroy the career of a brass shining commander so they are leery of their presence.
Am I off base?
I dont have experience to go on - just a gut feeling, reading anecdotes.
Its not the way it worked but I think of it as the man and his spotter drawing their weapons out of the rack and heading out to set up a hide and hunt. Soft cover, water, ammo - light and fast - scout snipers, fighting Marines.
The A3 to me was the start of the "system" era.........deployment kit in hard case, an accountable armory inventory of spares to maintain the system and for inspection only, not to actually be used, defined operational expectations, you will be in uniform of the day prescribed by senior unit commander - junk on the bunk prior to patrol - operational assets, part of the machine.
Some unrealistic romance in the first case - All respect to Carlos Hathcock but I have my suspicions his book was enhanced to some extent - still snipers in that day had a bit more autonomy due to the problem the art was not fully understood and there was a bit of bias against them, red headed step children in some commands.
Today respected for their ability to be the key to changing a tactical situation for the better but over managed, not given as much autonomy, others think they know their job better than them, a possible liability that could destroy the career of a brass shining commander so they are leery of their presence.
Am I off base?
I dont have experience to go on - just a gut feeling, reading anecdotes.
@pmclaine, I was doing it back in the early 2000's & while I can only speak for my specific unit during the time I was there, yeah your assessment seems pretty much spot on. I think there's a lot of reasons why that happened, none of which are particularly good... I'm just too lazy to go into a long diatribe on my phone about things that I may or may not fully understand, haha!
No need to go into detail.
It just kind of mirrors other events I see today.
The loss of treating people as responsible beings because the people have lost the American trait of self reliance.
Exactly. And it's not just a Marine Corps problem, a military problem or an America problem... I think the kinds of things we're talking about venture more into the realms of human nature, psychology & sociology perhaps.
I should have been more specific, I meant not even the 20 MOA one? according to Badger Ordnance Website, it will fit but I just want to make sure that it will fit my unmodified clip slotted 40XB .308 action.
Please see the link for reference, thank you.
I should have been more specific, I meant not even the 20 MOA one? according to Badger Ordnance Website, it will fit but I just want to make sure that it will fit my unmodified clip slotted 40XB .308 action.
Please see the link for reference, thank you.
There were two types of Rem clip slot.
On the M40 they put some effort into it and its a proper job for accepting a stripper clip. It tends to be narrower at the opening than the second type.
The second type is just a square gash in the rear receiver bridge.
You may be able to modify the Badger rail to fit the square slot.
The USMC method was to hand fit the lugged rail to the 6 digit receiver, Smarter people will explain how much detail they went into modifying later receivers for the lug.
Now you run into the issue of the front and rear mount points, apparently there is some issue with the curvature or bridge heights that can be an issue. You need to ask a smart guy, perhaps Marty at Badger.
One other issue....
The clip slot generally included a relief on the front bridge so that the nose of the bullets could be pressed into the magazine from the clip.
The lugged rail also mates into that front relief.
Its secured fore and aft.
