T or F ? Its only an M40A1 if it has all the right parts

[latinaincovina]

T or F ?

To qualify as an M40A1 it must have all of the following parts:

Rem 700 clip slotted short action Chanbered in 308
Old style Remington trigger
Hart, Douglas, rock, HS atchickson or Schnieder barrel
McMillan HTG NON STIPPLED Smear or Camo pattern stock
Pachmayr butt pad brown basket weave
Winchester Model 70 ALL STEEL Modified trigger guard and floor plate
Unertl scope mount
Unertl 10x or MST-100 optic
Slotted scope base screws on top of the receiver
Witichita 1 1/4" sling swivels
MRT Sling

Any other variations would make it M40A1ish ?
I see alot of rifles out there claiming to be M40A1s that dont meet the listed items.

 

[eodcam]

I'd say true, the glass would have to be the Unertl or any of the other documented scopes and mounts used.

 

[smoothy8500]

I'll admit mine is only M40A1-ish

 

[2ballcane]

T plus a record book


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BGE541]

True but really its only an M40A1 if it were made at the right location for the Mil. My .02

 

[Killswitch Engage]

If it ain't from pws and been issued they're all just m40a1'ish I'd say but that's just me.

 

[eodcam]

I like to refer to them as "Tributes", lol

 

[rlm8541]

Heres my 2112/PWS built A1 along with stamp and signed record/build book.
Take off stock and bottom metal, Take off original Unertl base/rings, Original Unertl Scope (1 digit off of my actual issued scope), Hart barrel, and 6 dig receiver.
About as close as you will ever see outside of the Corp.

 

[AccuSol-ERN]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think they used "slotted" action screws. The countersink factory holes in the bottom metal were counterbored and allen headed cap screws were used. Also I don't think it is any mod 70 bottom metal I believe it is post 64 steel metal that is thicker and wider on the front plate.

By no means have I ever been there and done that, just going off what Eric and Mark have shown me. Much respect to them and the shooters that keep this old workhorse alive.

Ern

 

[rlm8541]

You are correct in regards to the action screws fng....Steel "Pre" 64 M70 bottom metal. Post 64 is aluminum.

 

[AccuSol-ERN]

Gotcha, I know...pre and post...bottom metals were different in shape also.

FWIW - I agree that a "true" M40A1 will be built and used by Marines.

 

[rlm8541]

Mine was built by a Marine and I am a Marine...lolololol
Had to go there!...all in fun.

 

[AccuSol-ERN]

Yeah....corny....but it had to be done. I figured from your screen name, your were no shit. Thanks for your service.....now shouldn't you be running???

Ern

 

[M40_A1]

Thanks, Latinaincovina. I have to agree that only issued M40A1s are/were the only TRUE M40A1s, but I see your point regarding what some show as being "M40A1" that aren't even close, other than being Remington actions in McMillan stocks!

Also I don't think it is any mod 70 bottom metal I believe it is post 64 steel metal that is thicker and wider on the front plate.

The original M40A1s used pre-64 steel bottom metal. As the supply of pre-64 became scarce in the early 1990s, cast steel post-64 bottom metal was used. It was actually found, from what I have learned, that the cast steel post-64 parts were actually beefier and stronger than the pre-64 parts anyway.

I also have to add that the scope and mount were not always Unertl. One-piece Redfield 40-X and 700SA scope bases were used on the original M40A1s, first with Redfield 3x9 Accu-Range scopes, then with the Unertl 10X sniper scopes until the lugged Unertl base was developed.

I've been wondering lately, too....Am I the only one a bit bothered by the M40A1 and Unertl 10X sniper becoming topics for the "vintage" forum now. I guess it was inevitable eventually, but I never thought I'd see the day. I still remember first falling in love with the M40A1 from a magazine article I was reading in 1981 when it was state of the art!!! Vintage?- Say it ain't so!

 

[latinaincovina]

Mine was built by a Marine and I am a Marine...lolololol
Had to go there!...all in fun.

Missing my Dad right now! I so want to brag about him. On another note, post 1964 Win bottom metal on USMC rifles was always steel. Both hinged floor plate and trigger guard as far as i know.

 

[bogeybrown]

I'd have to agree that if it's not PWS built and issued it's a "tribute", but a number of guys go all the way to find all the right parts to have one assembled to "spec" which I respect the hell out of and they really deserve their own category with all the work that goes into them.

I'm having Marc at Spartan build me a way-off-the-reservation "tribute" rifle that will have some of the aesthetics of an A3 (ish) rifle because I always liked the look of them, but I wasn't going to be a slave to the original parts. I will wholeheartedly own that it will never be an M40A3, but when it's done I may post some pics in the appropriate M40 build thread as a bastard stepchild built in the right spirit.

 

[MescaBug]

If it ain't from pws and been issued they're all just m40a1'ish I'd say but that's just me.

I agree. If it doesnt come with the paperwork (rounds count and whatnot), its a A1ish. Is there a serial number registry somewhere?

 

[Redmanss]

Here's my take on the subject. There's issued M40A1s, close to history builds like GAP's M40A1s with MST-100 scopes and new stocks, then there's the abortions that companies like TR.net builds calling them "M40A1" without being anywhere near the spec or standard. Those companies are preying off the uninformed while tromping all over the history of those that built the guns and wore the tooth.

Having a textured stock or an ST-10 makes it not a A1. Using a Manners instead of McM makes it not an A3/5. Slapping on a NF or PH scope instead of a S&B is another common mistake, along with non-Surefire suppressors and muzzle devices. The whole MK12 Mod 0/1 clones sees the same sort of mistakes and fallacies. If the body of the rifle isn't correct, or if you changed something significant to suit your preferences, then fine but call it what it really is, not referring to it as what it is not.

My M40A1 is a clone. An Eric Reid/GAP built clone with all new parts and a USO MST-100. Close enough for me and I'll put the marks on the stock just like I did on three different others that someone hopefully now owns as returns.

 

[MescaBug]

Totally agree with above comment. What should we call a pieced-up-together M40A1? Tribute, clone? Even if one gathers all the correct parts for a build, its just a rifle made from 'correct' M40A1 parts.

Without a Unertl or MST100, its not even a clone. Its just another rifle.

Is there any 'true' civilian owned M40A1's? With paperwork and all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one is. And without a serial number registry, how can we know for sure?

 

[rlm8541]

Nice rifle Mesca....
This is an argument that is pretty much just more of a matter of opinion I suppose...in my own opinion..lolol. Kinda like what is "spec"...lol.
I had a long face to face conversation with a very well know 2112 "instructor" last Friday and he solidified my opinion in regards to "spec".
There was the "transition" era A1 rifle that is what most of us know of that was from the late 70's until the early 80's that had the assorted Redfield base/rings and Weaver T10 and Redfield scope. After that as he explained there was a "standard" parts list that is what was finally decided on and used for it's duration of existence. The only thing that really varied throughout was the barrel manufacturer due to supply needs only as we know.
Posed the question to him about barrel cutting and crowning. He said of the literally hundreds of barrels he cut it literally depended on what his mood was the day he was running the lathe....Said he went by no actual measurement.
The only thing that was required as "spec" was what the rifle was required to perform, the Black Oxide coating and the parts that were required to have the ser#'s stamped on them. Not even the location of where on those parts they were stamped was specified. As we have seen. Only that they were stamped.. The rest was left up to the individual builder that was screwing the rifle together.
Not posting this to start debate or argument as these type of posts sometimes do. But only to speak of the conversation I had to clear up personal question along with those that I know had been debated...Mostly for my own knowledge.

Now for my own two cents(for what that is worth.lol...Personally, not much...lol)...."Is it an A1" is the question?...If it is built with the correct parts "as listed above" to the "standerd" that we know of per TM publication or that from historical photos....Sure, it's an A1 by name. Is it an "Authentic" Marine Corp. "Issued" A1....Of course not... At least not legally...lol Unless it was purchased some how through CMP (which Im not aware of any...not to say there arn't any) or there is some sort of DERMO paperwork.
But, if it's not built with those known parts then I would personally have to say, no....Is a Victory Motorcycle a Harley Davidson? No, it's similar in looks but not a Harley.
So what do we call them? I really dont know....and this isn't to discredit those that appreciate and respect the A1 and are building something similar but in my own opinion its just a "similar to" A1.
Ok, that is all.....Let the Ass ripping begin!...lolololol
(just re read this...How about those run-on sentences, huh?..lol. Gotta love public schooling.lol)

 

[Raven 6]

Tribute! Clone means exactly, and as far as I know there may be 1 or 2 "Real" M40A1's out there in private hands, the others don't have the serial number of an "Issued" M40A1 so they are not a clone. I vote for Tribute as long as it meets the design specifications that have been set forth by PWS Quantico.

 

[M40_A1]

Hhhmmmm. A "clone"....a clone is "the aggregate of the asexually produced progeny of an individual." Unless original M40A1s were doing some weird stuff in the armory at night, I guess we are able to take some liberties with the term.

 

[Raven 6]

Or Websters version "An identical reproduction grown from a single cell of the original". In any case I still like the term "Tribute", but that's just my .02.

 

[Redmanss]

Tribute, clone, replica, whatever... I'm a grunt, not a marketing specialist or an English professor. They all pretty much mean the same to me. Maybe HOGs have clones or replicas of the rifles they carried, and everyone else has tributes.

 

[latinaincovina]

I guess this begs the question. What if the rifle was built BY a Marine armoror at Quantico, then used over seas by a Marine Sniper AFTER they left the Marines? Would that make it authentic?

 

[Raven 6]

I love them all regardless, as long as it looks and functions like a 40, I love'em. To me authentic and real are two different things. Not trying to step on anyone's toes here, but if it isn't a serial number logged as true property of the USMC it's not real, not even if it were built by a 2112 at Quantico. To me it has to be truly US government property or it is a tribute, clone, look alike, whatever. Although I envy you lucky souls that can get someone at PWS to do your build for you.

 

[rlm8541]

Allllllrighty then, looks like things have impacted a little left of center...lolol
This topic is starting to bore me now....lol My last post on this.

Appears as if we are talking about two different things here.....

Some are talking about "Authenticity" vs."Reproduction", and some are talking about a "Lable/name/catagory" for the A1.

If it was not an "issued" M40A1 to Active/Reserve Marines for duty in service. Then it is not an "Authentic issued" A1.

All of those after the fact, such as mine is clearly a "reproduction" of an "Authentic" A1.

Non the less they are both still A1's if built with the correct accurate parts..Because it surely isnt an M24,A3,or an A5 by name.
Hell I prefer to call her "Sally" personally.....lolol

Everything else is "Similar to, close to, sort of like, kindasorta like" an A1.

"Roger,OUT"!

 

[M40_A1]

Well, Roger, don't go away mad. I think we actually all understand and agree with the op, though we might use different terms. I don't have a problem with any of the names given, but I had to remind myself what I tell people about mine. I simply tell them it is a copy of a Marine Corps sniper rifle (most having to ask wouldn't have a clue what an M40A1 is, so then I educate them, time allowing).

 

[rlm8541]

All is good here my friends....All is good here!!! Just love seeing everyones sticks and hearing their stories about how, who where and their individual histories about them. 03A1,M700,A1,A3,A5's.......Ive got the sickness I tell ya! The Sickness!!!

KEEP THE PICS COMMING MEN!!!!

 

[Raven 6]

Ive got the sickness I tell ya! The Sickness!!!

KEEP THE PICS COMMING MEN!!!!

I believe we all do

 

[Hunt4life]

Depends, for collectors value and authenticity it needs to be the real thing made by the real armorers.

For shooting technology of the day and general fun, no, just build one as close as you can and enjoy it. Likely be more fun knowing that your not dicking around with an expensive piece of history.

 

[rlm8541]

I shoot them all....and all are tack drivers. Even my original WW2 8X Unertl on my 03A1...Drives tacks. If Im having them built...Im shooting them. No safe queens here.

 

[Badgerord]

I have to go with false!

There are NO receivers that were originally built into M40A1's that have been legally disposed of. This would be ALL receivers with a "C" letter prefix or later.

There is some pretty good evidence that their may be a couple M40 receivers that WERE Legally transferred from USMC
and made it out through the DCM (pre CMP) or as a prize rifles.

ALL M40A1's were built at Quantico by 2112's on USMC owned Remington receivers. I think that could be used as a legal definition.
If a rifle doesn't meet ALL of these requirements, its not an M40A1, its just a really cool, accurate, robust and awesome rifle.

Not a lot of people have real M14's but do have M1A's, they are still great guns.

Mesca, give me the the S/N and I can tell you if it real or not.

 

[mallrat]

Tribute! Clone means exactly, and as far as I know there may be 1 or 2 "Real" M40A1's out there in private hands, the others don't have the serial number of an "Issued" M40A1 so they are not a clone. I vote for Tribute as long as it meets the design specifications that have been set forth by PWS Quantico.

You could produce your own receiver or work from an 80% receiver and engrave whatever markings you want. May not be any more authentic, but it could be a closer "clone". Or tribute, or copy, or A1-ish, or whatever you decide to call it.

 

[rlm8541]

Hey Marty, I have a copy of a list that was compiled at PWS. This is a list of the only receivers "they" were able to research and are aware of. They themselves say it's not complete. I know that since the receiver I had isnt on it as well as several others i have seen.
Do you have an older list from RTE period or earlier. If so would love to compare off line with you. For nothing other than curiosity reasons.

 

[latinaincovina]

This seems to have gone somewhere else. Genuine USMC issued Authentic was not what I was trying to find. I see people selling rifles and posting pictures of rifles that they call M40A1s. When I look at them closely, alot of them are missing the parts listed above or have a variation of them. My thought was that in order to call it an M40A1 it should at least have the listed parts from above. Would you consider this true or false?

 

[mallrat]

It should have those parts/features, I generally assume it'll have some variations and judge each rifle individually. Could range from good reproductions to stone-stock Model 700s just called M40A1s because the owner saw it on the History Channel and thinks it sounds cool and is "basically the same".

 

[M40_A1]

My thought was that in order to call it an M40A1 it should at least have the listed parts from above. Would you consider this true or false?

I would say "true" for where you're going with this, but "false" when it gets down to the nitty-gritty. As I stated before, the first M40A1s used Redfield scopes and mounts. Also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a few in the system ended up having socket cap screws for the base screws instead of the usual slotted ones, but I can't say whether it is or isn't so. That one item might be debatable...maybe. Though maybe I should also add, for those that are interested, there are reproduction sets of those slotted M40A1 base screws on eBay RIGHT NOW

 

[M40_A1]

Sad truth be told....
One thing that really should be added to your list is black oxide finish. Unfortunately, that would alienate the vast majority of very nice M40A1 builds out there, and put them in the M40A1-ish category.

 

[Raven 6]

latinaincovina-True, I also agree with M40_A1 on the black oxide, which isn't to easy to find these days, at least not in my neck of the woods.

 

[Badgerord]

latinaincovina,

We have guys call all the time "I want an M40A3" then they go on to say stuff like "I want it in 7mm, I want an A5 stock, I want a Bushnell HDMR on Larue throw lever unimount"

Then you ask "What's M40A3 about this?" and you get "Well, I want it to be like an M40A3" and it just spirals down from there.

You are right, if it does not have all and I mean ALL the right parts, its not even a clone or a replica or a representation its just a custom made rifle.

rlm8541, there is one more source, if you want to PM me the info I can look into it.

 

[rlm8541]

"The only thing that was required as "spec" was what the rifle was required to perform, the Black Oxide coating and the parts that were required to have the ser#'s stamped on them. Not even the location of where on those parts they were stamped was specified. As we have seen. Only that they were stamped.. The rest was left up to the individual builder that was screwing the rifle together".

Was the required standard which is still used on todays A5's.

 

[rlm8541]

Dfoosking....The T10 was used on a small # of A1's that were put together for Force Recon during the early "Redfield" stages.
Ill see if I cant find some documentation for you.

 

[EasyGravy]

Good luck finding the Unertl unless you got obama money

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[latinaincovina]

This is the perfect example of what my question was. Thank you for adding this.

latinaincovina,

We have guys call all the time "I want an M40A3" then they go on to say stuff like "I want it in 7mm, I want an A5 stock, I want a Bushnell HDMR on Larue throw lever unimount"

Then you ask "What's M40A3 about this?" and you get "Well, I want it to be like an M40A3" and it just spirals down from there.

You are right, if it does not have all and I mean ALL the right parts, its not even a clone or a replica or a representation its just a custom made rifle.

rlm8541, there is one more source, if you want to PM me the info I can look into it.

 

[jonesy]

Heres my 2112/PWS built A1 along with stamp and signed record/build book.
Take off stock and bottom metal, Take off original Unertl base/rings, Original Unertl Scope (1 digit off of my actual issued scope), Hart barrel, and 6 dig receiver.
About as close as you will ever see outside of the Corp.

That's damn cool.

 

[ChrisF]

My one being built at the moment is a M40A1ish , as it will defer in 2 ways from the specs , 1 ) It uses a one piece steel Badger trigger guard & 2 ) the muzzle we be threaded for a suppressor .
My Canadian C3A1 is also a C3A1ish , as it also is threaded for a can .
Pic of my C3A1ish .

 

[BrianLara400]

latinaincovina,

We have guys call all the time "I want an M40A3" then they go on to say stuff like "I want it in 7mm, I want an A5 stock, I want a Bushnell HDMR on Larue throw lever unimount"

Then you ask "What's M40A3 about this?" and you get "Well, I want it to be like an M40A3" and it just spirals down from there.

You are right, if it does not have all and I mean ALL the right parts, its not even a clone or a replica or a representation its just a custom made rifle.

rlm8541, there is one more source, if you want to PM me the info I can look into it.

Hi Marty,
out of interest can you clarify which rifles in the procurement system, the 4 slot rails for the short action Rem made at Crane in 80's, where intended for/ ended up on?
any info would be most appreciated.

 

[Badgerord]

Brian,

Are you sure the S/A 4 slot rails made weren't by Leupold? Do you have a pic?

Crane built a lot of rifles that just got used by different agencies and units that weren't really designated as an "M"whatever or a Mk XX mod yy.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I think an all original M40A1 is an M40A1, and everything else is something else. A Hurst Mustang is a Hurst Mustang, and most of the ones we see are not. A Ford GT-40 replica is a far more practical and drivable vehicle than the original ever could be, but it's no Le Mans racer, either.

I like the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 for what it is; but when I add contemporary optics, it becomes something else.

I can see a valid point in owning and experiencing the M40A1 from a living history viewpoint; and I also believe that if a participant is willing to extend that experience to something else, fine with me.

To me, the attraction is not strong; my interest is more a matter of practical experience, and not of authenticity. Authenticity carries a premium I don't personally justify. I'd rather shoot rifles than covet them.

Greg