For anyone wanting a clone...the m40 was always and is a much better built rifle than the garbage remington put out. Factory Remington with slightly better qc than a $350 rifle vs a ground up custom pws build by trained Craftsman. You can get a quality m24 but it won't be clone correct becuase Remington never put the effort and time into them like a real custom builder would. This coming from an Army dude who worked on our snipers m24s. They worked but nothing like a quality custom build ala GAP, PWS-quantico or any quality builder.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Remington M24 Special Run rifles only @ EuroOptic
- Thread starter jb1000br
- Start date
That was a previous program for former snipers to buy trade in "rifles" using xmil parts and virgin recievers.
That's not what this is. This is the equivalent of a v6 base mustang with zero options that impresses no one who knows what it is. Not trying to throw shade but it is what it is. It's not a custom or even semi custom rifle. It's a factory built quasi contract , special run rifle that is only required to shoot 1.1 moa (average) and that's for us mil acceptance. Commercial guns don't have that requirement.
Had a chance to buy one of the returned/bringback ones and passed.
At almost 3k this would be very easy to pass on unless you are the collector of 'commerative edition' stuff for some reason.
You'll see the vast majority of these on GunBroker from the usual shitbird gun stores that buy this shit up, add the incorrect Leupold scope and pelican case and then market them as some RARE DEVGRU/SEAL/RANGER/SUPER SECRET M24 DEPLOYMENT PACKAGE!1!1!!!!!
At almost 3k this would be very easy to pass on unless you are the collector of 'commerative edition' stuff for some reason.
You'll see the vast majority of these on GunBroker from the usual shitbird gun stores that buy this shit up, add the incorrect Leupold scope and pelican case and then market them as some RARE DEVGRU/SEAL/RANGER/SUPER SECRET M24 DEPLOYMENT PACKAGE!1!1!!!!!
Fair point, but I've read (somewhere...) that even though the requirement was 1.1 moa, they actually tend to shoot much better than that.
My 90's Remington VS in .308 shoots well under MOA when using Federal Gold Medal ammo. The only thing I did to it was polish the bore before and during the first firings, using a technique recommended to me back then by a fellow who indicated he was a competitor in what were then called 'sniper competitions.' I can't say if it helped, but it sure didn't hurt
The accuracy spec for the M24 is actually 1.2 AMR @ 200, for a 10 shot group. AMR can't really be converted to MOA, as MOA is an extreme-spread measurement, where AMR accounts for every round in a group regardless where it impacts.
While meeting a 10-shot 1.2 AMR @ 200y isn't the same thing as claiming 1/2 MOA 5-shot 100y ES, a new, not broken-in rifle shooting factory ammo that can do that is still no slouch.
While meeting a 10-shot 1.2 AMR @ 200y isn't the same thing as claiming 1/2 MOA 5-shot 100y ES, a new, not broken-in rifle shooting factory ammo that can do that is still no slouch.
The point is a m40 from the pws is going to use better parts, better craftsmanship, and will shoot better more reliably than a factory built rifle from a company known to not give a fuck and always look for a way to pad the profit margin using cheaper labor and materials.
So for those in the know, is it correct to expect that the parts to create these rifles are “the same” as “normal” Remington parts say on a 5r etc, and the big differences are that:
1. It’s an exact copy of a real m24
2. It’s hand assembled by the people that build real m24s, and not just put together like more generic 700s are being assembled.
1. It’s an exact copy of a real m24
2. It’s hand assembled by the people that build real m24s, and not just put together like more generic 700s are being assembled.
If you want to shoot any cartridge with a standard bolt face, then no. Screw on a different barrel, check zero, and do great things. If you want to shoot a cartridge with a magnum bolt face, then yes, you either need to machine your std. bolt (not recommended) or get a magnum bolt (easier options if you REALLY want to shoot std and magnum off the same rifle.) then screw on a new bbl. check zero, and rack up the x's. Unless the R700 just blows your skirt up look somewhere else for a switch barrel.
God bless America
I thought the M24 vs M40 thing was over a decade ago.
The guys at PWS certainly have done some amazing things with the platform, and we're honored to be a part of the M40s history. I've visited the operation several times, and never am less than at-awe over what they do with those service rifles- some of them decades old, with multiple theatres under their belt.
I'm not sure the description of our shop is fair, though. Yes, Remington has made some mistakes over the years, but we're not the same company we were in the early 10s.
I've been with the MIL/LE division since before Freedom Group, throughout that era, and am still here now that Freedom Group is gone. Throughout those changes, operations in Remington MIL/LE didn't really change a whole lot. We were always able to tell management that we needed to do what we needed to do to meet contracts, and they let us go. We've basically kept doing what we always did, in the background and out of the fray.
Now that Remington is back in control and Freedom Group is no-longer, the Sporting side has really been finding their stride. There's some really cool stuff coming that I wish I could share, but that's their channel and they'll unveil it in due-time.
But, if you want some evidence today, look at the Marlin guns. Those are difficult rifles to make, but, post-Freedom Group, they've been putting out some of the best Marlins ever made. I've bought three in the past two years (and mine come random out of the same stack at the warehouse as yours), and they've all been flawless.
I'm not going to try to deny that Big Green has left you guys with some valid reasons to doubt us, but we really are getting back to who we were in the first place.
v/r
RemDef
Could yould you possibly elaborate any on the gen 1 and 2 5r milspec rifles, how they came about and where they where built in the plant? I've come full circle and am thinking of purchasing a new 700p or older 5r. Thank you for posting in the forum it's nice to speak directly to a person from the big R.
The 5Rs are great rifles, and awesome buys. They are/were not, according to the popular myth, M24 over-run barrels. They are Sporting varmint-contour barrels forged on 5R mandrels. The earliest 5Rs used the M24s 1:11.25” mandrels, but the more recent ones are done in 1:10”. The Mod 2s have threaded muzzles (because; why shoot a loud rifle if you don’t have to?) and a black finish on the SS parts. The M24 has a heavier contour barrel (still off a 1:11.25” mandrel), and is built in the MIL/LE build section I mentioned earlier. The 5R is built on the Sporting line.
My personal M2010 clone has a basically stock .300 WM 5R barreled receiver in it (I threaded the muzzle 18x1.5 for a TiTanQD, and opened the scope mount screws to 8-40). I have a couple pre-FNC 2010 barrels for down-the-road replacement, but the factory 5R barrel shoots well enough that I couldn’t bring myself to scrap it until it’s shot-out.
The 5R is a great off-the-rack rifle, and a perfect barreled action to put into a custom assembly if you want to forgo a visit to the gunsmith. It’ll shoot.
I have one of the M24's that were sold with the used/issued stock... it's an awesome rifle!
I'm very tempted to get in on one of these also, I just need to convince myself that I need another one : )
DW
I'm very tempted to get in on one of these also, I just need to convince myself that I need another one : )
DW
@RemDef i heard that all of the 700s are coming tapped for 8x40 scope base screws now?
Any truth to that?
Any truth to that?
Three questions for anyone who's used an M24:
1. What did you do about cheek weld height? Duct tape over pipe insulation?
2. The 'wheel' in the stock for length of pull has always bugged me. First, how likely is it to get fouled by dust or dirt? Second, does it lock in place somehow so it doesn't move when transported?
3. How much does the wheel stick out to the left and right of the stock?
Thanks
1. What did you do about cheek weld height? Duct tape over pipe insulation?
2. The 'wheel' in the stock for length of pull has always bugged me. First, how likely is it to get fouled by dust or dirt? Second, does it lock in place somehow so it doesn't move when transported?
3. How much does the wheel stick out to the left and right of the stock?
Thanks
Three questions for anyone who's used an M24:
1. What did you do about cheek weld height? Duct tape over pipe insulation?
2. The 'wheel' in the stock for length of pull has always bugged me. First, how likely is it to get fouled by dust or dirt? Second, does it lock in place somehow so it doesn't move when transported?
3. How much does the wheel stick out to the left and right of the stock?
Thanks
1. Cheek height is fixed by building a cheek piece. Duct tape and closed cell foam.
2. It has coarse threads so dust/dirt doesn’t bother it much, however you end up with play in the buttpad if you adjust it out. There is a locking ring that keeps the length set. To eliminate any wobble in the stock, take a wooden block and shave it to form fill the void between the buttpad and the stock. Then fill the remaining void with closed cell foam and tape it all down.
3. The wheel doesn’t protrude to a point that you’d notice or that’s worth mentioning.
The pic kind of shows it all taped up.
Attachments
Three questions for anyone who's used an M24:
1. What did you do about cheek weld height? Duct tape over pipe insulation?
2. The 'wheel' in the stock for length of pull has always bugged me. First, how likely is it to get fouled by dust or dirt? Second, does it lock in place somehow so it doesn't move when transported?
3. How much does the wheel stick out to the left and right of the stock?
Thanks
1- 100mph tape + carpet padding
2- If its the same as on the A2 (HS stock but different model) it has a metal plate the diameter of the wheel that you can screw the wheel against and tighten. Even if its loose the LOP isn't going to slide all over the place as you need the tension on the wheel to make it longer/shorter. You either got a screwdriver and cranked the wheel as tight as you could via putting the long end of the screwdriver in one of the holes and torquing it, or left it 'hand tight' and allowed adjustment of the LOP for prone/kneeling shot changes. Generally you ended up just leaving it.
3- It doesn't.
The three main things I loved about the A2 was that it got rid of the original HS stock and put the 'newer' one with the cheek piece on it, as well as had the MARS for a clip on. The detachable bottom metal from Badger and using AI mags for this was a huge upgrade.
No. Not all 700s. We did change the 700P over to them, for this year, due to the increasing prevalence of clip-on night optics in LE.
The only 700s that come from the factory with 8-40s are the .338 LMs, the M24 family, and the newer 700Ps.
Ah, I knew I had to have messed that fact up. Just the new 700p was the change. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.
I can attest that recent Marlin quality has improved as I purchased an 1895 3'ish years ago after Remington had some time to digest the Marlin purchase, and it is as well built as my JM produced 1894C. Excellent wood to metal fit, straight sights, no buggered up screws, smooth cycling, etc. I've now have ~ 350 rounds through it, mostly easy shooting handloads and it's performed flawlessly.
I also bought last week a new R700 ADL in 6.5CM (at a crazy good price on sale) to build up like my R700 in .223 (which has also performed just fine), and it looks to be screwed together right. Only have a few rounds downrange (breaking in the barrel), but the bolt cycles smoothly, trigger breaks crisply with little overtravel (although a bit heavy) and has a good even finish. Good to see Remington is rising from its previous issues. I'll report back on the new ADL after I get some more rounds downrange, put it into a Bravo stock and get some optics mounted.
I also bought last week a new R700 ADL in 6.5CM (at a crazy good price on sale) to build up like my R700 in .223 (which has also performed just fine), and it looks to be screwed together right. Only have a few rounds downrange (breaking in the barrel), but the bolt cycles smoothly, trigger breaks crisply with little overtravel (although a bit heavy) and has a good even finish. Good to see Remington is rising from its previous issues. I'll report back on the new ADL after I get some more rounds downrange, put it into a Bravo stock and get some optics mounted.
The army's. It's some semi retarded standard that a contracting officer or TE came up with like 30 years ago. Virtually any rifle with match ammo can obtain it.
Yea no idea how it went down. Something as simple as must maintain moa out to 800 yards using 118LR at sea level 70* @ 70% humidity would have been more than sufficant. The max effective range for ammo of the time. 200 yard groups mean jack shit.
Google is your friend. Apparently Mean Radius was originally mentioned in Hatcher's Notebook.
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-64906.html
At first glance it makes some sense. It seem to be noting the important observatio that the average is not necessarily a great measure, of anything. What's perhaps more important is the distribution of that data points. In some sense this reminds me a bit of the WEZ theory of Bryan Litz (but I'll have to review before I can really make that claim.)
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-64906.html
At first glance it makes some sense. It seem to be noting the important observatio that the average is not necessarily a great measure, of anything. What's perhaps more important is the distribution of that data points. In some sense this reminds me a bit of the WEZ theory of Bryan Litz (but I'll have to review before I can really make that claim.)
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but: MOA is an angular measurement, essentially a cone. Average radius is a measurement of radius. I don't see them as being equivalent. But think you for the meaning of AMR; I'd been trying to find it and Google (being the worthless piece of crap that it has become) was utterly useless.
I found the quote below here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle
"In 1982, a U.S. Army draft requirement for a Sniper Weapon System was: "The System will: (6) Have an accuracy of no more than 0.75 MOA (0.2 mrad) for a 5-shot group at 1,500 meters when fired from a supported, non-benchrest position".[22] The Sniper Weapon System (M24) adopted in 1988 has a stated maximum effective range of 800 meters and a maximum allowed average mean radius (AMR) of 1.9 inches at 300 yards from a machine rest, what corresponds to a 0.6 MOA (0.17 mrad) extreme spread for a 5-shot group when using 7.62 × 51 mm M118 Special Ball cartridges.[21][23][24] "
I'm not sure how they converted 1.9" @300 yrds. Ie. I haven't tried doing the math. But if it's accurate then it's a 0.6 MOA rifle.
"In 1982, a U.S. Army draft requirement for a Sniper Weapon System was: "The System will: (6) Have an accuracy of no more than 0.75 MOA (0.2 mrad) for a 5-shot group at 1,500 meters when fired from a supported, non-benchrest position".[22] The Sniper Weapon System (M24) adopted in 1988 has a stated maximum effective range of 800 meters and a maximum allowed average mean radius (AMR) of 1.9 inches at 300 yards from a machine rest, what corresponds to a 0.6 MOA (0.17 mrad) extreme spread for a 5-shot group when using 7.62 × 51 mm M118 Special Ball cartridges.[21][23][24] "
I'm not sure how they converted 1.9" @300 yrds. Ie. I haven't tried doing the math. But if it's accurate then it's a 0.6 MOA rifle.
I don't think that is a correct conversion. They just converted 1.9" @ 300 to MOA and a MOA group is technically the diameter. Also average mean takes out a lot of the finite conversion out of it. This is because in theory it will throw out flyers assuming they are not that far out to destroy the average.
I don't know much about the standard (haven't read it) but I would have assumed it included some sort of standard deviation in the calculation to be statistically significant which would tell even more about the rifles repeatability.
Edit reading the m4 post they are using average mean like the standard deviation from zero. In theory standard deviation is about 1/3 of total deviation. That being said how many people test accuracy at distance for 10 rounds. I bet people would be surprised what their half MOA guns shoot compared to the army spec.
Last edited:
Three questions for anyone who's used an M24:
1. What did you do about cheek weld height? Duct tape over pipe insulation?
2. The 'wheel' in the stock for length of pull has always bugged me. First, how likely is it to get fouled by dust or dirt? Second, does it lock in place somehow so it doesn't move when transported?
3. How much does the wheel stick out to the left and right of the stock?
Thanks
1. I tapped some foam over the stock just like our boys in camo do.
2. I put tape on it.
3. No idea what you’re talking about.
The Remington M24 is the premier sniper rifle of recent memory. Mine puts 5 rounds in less than half inch. If ya want some thing cooler, buy something else. But stop arguing about it. There’s nothing better for shooting tight groups. It’s an incredibly accurate rifle and historically significant. Get one, you won’t be disappointed.
Premier what? The m40 has always been a superior system, a true custom build by service members who actually gave a shit. The m24 was not a terrible system, it worked usually. Just a whole lot of bad ideas ( long action, sights, optic) and not a very well built gun. Shoot one next to a m40 with a premier or pm2 and it's night and day. It's not incredibly accurate. Some are shooters and some are not. Poor maintenance is a factor but let's not kid ourselves...a cut rifles barrel it is not, and even FNs chrome lined SPR barrels usually outshoot it with a much longer service life.
I've been asking questions. You know, to become better informed. That's not arguing. You might find this link informative.
Definition of 'argue'
I often expect the guy selling a product to be able to answer questions. That does not seem unreasonable to me.
Let's stick to the narrow focus of the stupid question: expecting a retailer to know how each part that goes into the product they sell was sourced by the OEM.
I've worked in manufacturing my entire adult life except for my military service. That would be 25 years to be specific.
Manufacturers don't release component sourcing information to retailers except in the very rare instances that it's required by law.
What consumers may think is reasonable and what is actually reasonable are two different things in this instance.
well it's a EO exclusive...you think they'd have at least some input/knowledge on the spec
Remington hammer forges their barrels and their sniper barrels are honed after being drilled to ensure they have the best interior finish possible before they go into the hammer forge. This is a step no other Remington rifle barrel goes through. Additionally, the steel bottom metal on every M24 comes from Sunny Hill (Google it) and has for 30 years. Remington makes most, if not all the parts on the M24 trigger and has to test 100% of them exhaustively to meet military requirements. This extra labor adds significant cost to the trigger. If you ever wondered why an M24 action is so smooth it is because it has a special lubricious coating applied called Sandstrom. Additionally, the barrel and bottom metal are powder coated black to inhibit corrosion (Cerakote was not invented in 1987) and remove shininess. I’m pretty sure the scope mounts are either badger or Leupold. There have been 2 types of scope mounts over the years, one piece and two piece. Bottom line, there ain’t nuthin but the best stuff on an M24.
While you seem to have some knowledge of the USMC’s PWS folks, all wonderful craftsmen, I’m not sure why you feel the need to diminish the folks in the Remington Defense build area (Bldg 84-4). Understand that the M24 is built to an Army dispersion requirement and all M24s meet that requirement or they don’t go out the door to the Army. Remington actually discourages “Gunsmithing” their products, choosing instead to use engineering and good assembly techniques to ensure when assembled the rifle meets all requirements. If it does not then a root cause analysis is done and once they understand the failure and fixes are made (or a non conformance report is sent to a supplier) the guilty part is typically removed and replaced rather than trying to “gunsmith it” into acceptability. In fact, a good example Of this was when the USMC received their M40A6 chassis from Remington, the PWS folks had some growing pains as no longer could they dremel the stock to fit, but had to get more precise in their builds to hit the recoil lug cutout position consistently. Remington Defense builders had been doing this same thing for quite sometime with their M2010 builds as the chassis were nearly identical save for the action length (and a few other) minor differences. The real truth is though that nearly all the M24s will exceed (Shoot tighter) their dispersion requirement and about half will exceed it by 2x. I’m not sure how any sniper rifle shooting between .3 to 1 MOA, without any barrel break in, could be judged as subpar. I don’t think it is good practice to paint a poor picture of a sister service if you have no actual knowledge of how they procure their sniper rifles and what their manufacturing looks like. In the world of military procurement the contractor must meet the established Statement of Work and Remington has been doing that with M24s for 32 years.
Even tho I agree 100% this current product is over priced, the old release/buyback they did the rifles were selling for $2k or under pretty regular for awhile there and mine shoots absolutely fantastic. In fact I havnt heard of one that isn't a legit sub moa rifle. Maybe they tried extra hard for their buyback program on the new recievers or as REMDEF said they upped their game.... but it was worth every bit of $2k to me...as a shooter and collector.
It kind of speaks to the fact simplicity...can and still does work?
but yes, not for this $3k rifle...to me.
On the other hand...don't listen to me. I just bought a M40....FML haha...
GL
DT
I own an M24R as well.
The rifle shoots extremely consistent .9 MOA with Factory .308 and 7.62x51 FGMM, but never better. It was also the most difficult rifle I've ever had to improve upon with handloads.
THEN, finally I found a Varget load that it prefers and it now routinely groups in the .5-.6 MOA range with the 175gr SMK, occasionally going under 1/2 minute and up to 3/4 minute on a poor group.
The action is fairly slick, but no more so than the early 90's 700 BDL that was my first rifle I ever purchased at 14.
Bottom line, they are pretty good rifles and I was fortunate to get an "R" (minus scope and deployment kit) with some history for a touch under $2,100. However, given that I've seen a couple of these on Gunbroker for a tad under $3K, I'm not sure I could justify the cost for what I'm getting.
As always, YMMV.
The rifle shoots extremely consistent .9 MOA with Factory .308 and 7.62x51 FGMM, but never better. It was also the most difficult rifle I've ever had to improve upon with handloads.
THEN, finally I found a Varget load that it prefers and it now routinely groups in the .5-.6 MOA range with the 175gr SMK, occasionally going under 1/2 minute and up to 3/4 minute on a poor group.
The action is fairly slick, but no more so than the early 90's 700 BDL that was my first rifle I ever purchased at 14.
Bottom line, they are pretty good rifles and I was fortunate to get an "R" (minus scope and deployment kit) with some history for a touch under $2,100. However, given that I've seen a couple of these on Gunbroker for a tad under $3K, I'm not sure I could justify the cost for what I'm getting.
As always, YMMV.
Yes, just like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, FN, Barrett, HK and SIG does. That is "Winning Government Competitions 101" - design to threshold requirements and keep costs down. Not sure if you are meaning that as a bad thing. If the requirement isn't good enough their wouldn't be one.
Forgot to mention that the PWS folks turned to Remington Defense to help them deal with their recoil lug fit issue on M40A6 chassis. The two organizations worked closely with each other (and always have) to help overcome the issue. PWS still buys their actions directly from Remington, despite all the rage to spend $100s of extra dollars on the various M700 clone actions out there. PWS does tweak their Remington actions but I don't think you are going to find any general dissatisfaction with these items by the PWS or they wouldn't have kept buying them for the 5 decades of that program...
Same in corporate land. That's what requirements are for. Meet all of them, and you win. Multiples meet all of them and it generally (bribes and other BS I've encountered personally aside) goes to lowest apparent cost.
Hi,
That and/or they just rewrite the requirements in such a way that it narrows the field down until the "desired" one is the only one left in the circle of trust
Everybody remembers the PSR debacles right, haha
Everybody remembers the recent Integral Suppressed Upper debacles right, lolol
The NGSW is under its' 11th "criteria" revision at this very moment....anyone want to guess how many more before only FN is left standing??
And it is still listed as PON (Prototype Opportunity Notice).
No need to even dive off into the armored vehicle, UTVs and Aerospace side...........Those make the weapons solicitations look like a Nativity scene of pureness.
Sincerely,
Theis
Last edited:
