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

[BrianLara400]

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.

Hi Marty,
Last year Pre64 Marksman and I were researching the use of personal/ non issue optics on snipers rifles and such, and he had this very intriguing PM exchange with another forum member. I’ve sought permission from him to publish portions of that conversation here - hence the slight delay.
The S/A 4 slot rails are referenced in a few spots throughout and seems to suggest it was of crane manufacture. (Marty you personally also rate a few mention's)

Late 80's 1987/1988/1989 ish

1" tubes were all that was out there as far as civi's go, ONLY the Loopy Ultra, B&L of similar construction and a few other very specialized scopes came in 30mm. Rings for them didn't exist (for all practical terms) Also in that time a civilian could not purchase a "Mil-Dot" scope. Nobody made them and those that did wouldn't sell them to you without letter head. That being said a little company in Winchester VA was making a killing swapping reticles on Loopy scopes to the USMC style "football" Mil-Dot (Premier Reticles).

The subject of your quandary also evolved about that time 1989 to be exact. Settle in a story ensues from here.

Also made of unobtanium were the Remington rifles known as the PSS. Again only available to Mil & LEO. It was a 26", H-S Precision stocked heavy bbl'd Rem 700 SA. My good friend and shooting partner (curse him for not getting me one too) was able by some obfuscation to order one of these rifles directly from Remington Military/LEO sales. We topped it with a Loopy VXII 4-12X on a set of Redfeild rings and JR base. At 1K down at Camp LeJune, NC doing warm up for the Navy Rifle Team after the East Coast and All Navy Matches we maxed out the elevation and were holding the crook of a pine tree about 18' above the target ripping the X ring out of the target with M-852.

Following our proud showing we decided that we needed more elevation than we had and with the help of another shooter/gunsmith we hit upon the idea of "beer can shim's". We deduced that the addition of 4 layers of beer cans would get us to 1K w/o holding over. We were quite happy to prove this at Camp Butner, NC at a regional competition during an "Any/Any" match. It wasn't pretty but it worked, kind of. We could only get about 4 MOA of wind right or left out of the scope. We added another layer of beer can and longer screws and set off to Quantico, VA for the Inter-Service match.

At Inter-Service all of the "Magnum's" (what were to become the MK-13 many years later) were taken so my partner pulls out his affectionately named "Black Beauty" and proceeds to do a quick bore clean. The head Armorer (a fella named Pat Metternight) took one look at our bubba gun and said "What the fuck kind of abortion is that! Gimme that gun." or words to that effect. As a matter of fact a lot more and more colorful words to that effect. Pat was THE GOD of Crane and my partner and I were on our first trip to the big show so the rifle was given up and it disappeared into the Crane van. Another Armorer named "Dobber" came out, cigarette dangling from his mouth shaking his head looking at us and grumbling under his breath. Now we had pissed off not only the “God of Crane” but "THE Gunsmith". We figured we were going to be sent home at any minute for being too stupid to live.

The next morning there was my bud’s rifle with a funny looking 1 piece rail and a 16X Loppy ultra sitting on top of it. It came with the warning that the scope was a loner and that the screw holes in the receiver were now something called 8-40’s, and we’d need to find some Weaver rings if we wanted to use the mount which had an additional 20 MOA of angle built in, AFTER we gave back the Ultra. We weren’t real sure what all that meant but hell we had a scope that could get us to 1K w/o the use of a pine tree. The scope and base performed as designed and we both did well at the long line. Well enough that we were both assigned magnum’s for Camp Perry.
The base in question was made of steel and had 4 picatinny slot’s milled into it. 2 forward and 2 aft and was set up for the M-700 SA (M-40) and we were told it was a prototype that Crane was working on for “some folks”. Special Warfare didn’t use the 700 SA so it wasn’t us but the Marine’s obviously did and the Army was beginning to.


Fast forward 2 decades to The Allegheny Sniper Challenge in WV where I was eating pizza and drinking beer with Moon, George Gardner (GA Precision) and Marty Bordsen (Badger Ord.) when the subject of 338LM’s came up and Marty was saying how he had modified the first 10 or 20 rifles for Crane to be able to handle the cartridge.
“Oh, when did you work for Crane?” say’s I.
“Back in the 80’s.” says Marty.
“My bud has a scope rail from Crane that was a prototype from back then on his PSS.”
“4 slot’s?”
“Yes Sir.”
“I made them.”
Ever wondered how Badger Ordinance got started? There is a real good start.

Now as to the USMC fielding Ultras & MK-4’s in place of the Unertl to my knowledge it was never authorized. There was a program to build “DMR” rifles on the M-14 platform that used a 3 – 9X Loopy optic. That being said I do know several snipers that used personal scopes and “platoon purchase” scopes when the Unertl’s were having serious capability issues before USO got a hold of them. These were 1” tubed versions to drop right into the Redfield rings. I’ve seen them mounted up in the field in Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia. You must remember that Picatinny and 30mm scopes were not the “standard” they are now until after 2000. Even after Y2K the Loopy LR/T M1 and M2 were about the only commercially “readily” available 30mm scopes out there with very few ring and rail mfg’s. Most were still using “Weaver” sized slots.

The first few years of OEF and OIF were pretty much wide open for the use of “personal gear” on weapons platforms because we hadn’t been in a real fight in years and guys were mounting all kinds of stuff to their guns. You can look at the history of the M-4 and see how fast that moved from SOCOM to standard issue.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Doc76251

Also another portion of those emails regarding the occasional VariX leupold which found its way into service, P64 'Marksman thought this would probably be of interest you Mescabug

Latest from Doc76251 confirming the VariXIIIs "snuck into" Unertl bases while deployed. All this confirming what I wanted to know and than I decide to continue with the M24. I will do an M40a1 later for sure so no worries but I crack myself up that I'm not going full steam ahead with an m40a1 build after learning all this!
BTW below he mentions LR/Ts. That's refering to my discussion with him about in 1999/2000 Leupold added variable 30mm tube scopes. These are not at all like the fixed power ultra m4s. When they came out they were designated variXIII LR/T. Now they are branded Mk4 like the older Ultras even though construction-wise they are different. But Doc confirmed the Older 1" tube Vari-x III Leupolds used operationally in Unertl Mounts on M40a1s! My bet is they'd be the older police models with both elev and windage target knobs or possibly the varmint models that only had elevation target turret as well. I'd say go with the police model. It be 3-9x 10.

-----------
Quote from Doc76251:

They were a mix of Loopies, usually a VariX-3 as this was long before the LR/T's ande M-4's which were 30mm main tubes. It was one thing to pull a broke scope and replace it, it was quite something else to pull a perfectly good base. Most had target turrets or competition turrets. I don't recall seeing a fixed power optic but I could be wrong. You have to remember these were field replacements, some were personnaly owned and some were platoon buys. A lot of them were put on after they embarked and removed before they came back to garrison. There was more than one sniper that went into the field with a 25 meter flight deck zero.
------------

Thanks again to Pre64 Marksman for his permission, I believe his and of course Doc76251's info represents a valuable contribution to the forums collective knowledge base and should interest a quite a few of you.

 

[MescaBug]

That's good info right there. IMO, it should be posted in the M40A1 thread as well.

I was talking with pre64marksman about the possibility of using something else (optic) than the Unertl/USO scope on a M40A1 build. Mostly because people cant afford it. Something that would be 'correct'. Something that has been seen by someone, somewhere, sometimes.

Thanks to both of you. Thats food for thought.

 

[pre64marksman]

Thanks for the kind words and much thanks to Doc for the exchange as well. The history on all this is really fascinating! The Unertl or MST is still something to save up to but these other options make for nice historic peices as well. I still think the older Accurange A1 setups are really snaz and a few people have also shown pics of clones of the limited rifles that had Weaver target scopes on them! All really cool!

 

[tylerw02]

Brian, I had a conversation in a pub with an 8541 that was staying with a friend of mine for a short while having just got out in 2004ish. I suppose the conversation started because we were all talking about shooting and hunting. I hadn't noticed, but he was wearing a unit tee shirt. He asked what gear I used, I suppose trying to figure if I was full of shit or not. When I told him I had a Leupold he had said somebody else in his unit had used one and he was jealous because it was so much better than the "piece of shit Unertl" he had to use in service. So he confirmed at least one Leupold being used on an M40A1--though it certainly wasn't issued that way. He also wasn't too pleased with the ammunition they had, either. It kind of put things into perspective when half of us bitch about how crummy a Leupold is, and we aren't even using them in the line of duty. All of us civilian shooters are pampered anymore with how good gear is a decade later.

 

[delixe]

This is my take as well.
For an analogy, I wish I had never sold off my 1971 Barracuda Convertible.
If I still had it, I would have transformed it into a Hemi 'Cuda but you better believe it would have big anti sway bars with urethane bushings, modern shocks, and radial tires.
It would have to drive as good as it looks, as it would be driven, not parked in a carpeted museum.
Function trumps form every time for me.

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

 

[scatsob]

I might be a little biased but I think if it's built by a 2112 with ALL the correct parts (minus the serial number on the receiver of course) it is the real deal. We will likely never see these gun for sale to the public, even if they finally go to an updated system.

 

[pre64marksman]

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!



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!

Great info about the BM pre or post 64 thanks! I agree with you about learning things are now vintage that I thought were really cool. The F-117 is now vintage yet its still near and dear to me. The F-15C/E (still in service) are considered ancient tech yet I think they are still some sweet sh$@! The whole vintage thing doesn't bother me WWII gear is still some of the coolest. Old WWII fighters are way cooler to me than current aircraft and the old Marine A3 sniper and Canadian LongBranch No4 snipers are incredibly cool rifles. I will end with agreeing what others have stated that a clone build is not a true M40A1 but its dang nice to own one day as good historical reference and apreciation to those whose butts are on the line and down in the scrub hunting the enemy in the service of Liberty!

Tyler02 I gotta ask what Leupold were you using? Was it a 1" tube Leup in the existing Unertl rings or a 30mm M1 in another ring and base setup?

 

[tylerw02]

I wasn't a marine just had a conversation with an 8541 that had just got out. My scope that the marine was jealous was a 30mm. He didn't say what his marine buddy was using, just said Leupold. I wish I would have asked at the time but I was more interested in the beer at the moment. If I ever run into him again I'll ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pre64marksman]

I wasn't a marine just had a conversation with an 8541 that had just got out. My scope that the marine was jealous was a 30mm. He didn't say what his marine buddy was using, just said Leupold. I wish I would have asked at the time but I was more interested in the beer at the moment. If I ever run into him again I'll ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. My guess is the Marine you were talking with was using an A1? The reason I ask is I've seen a photo somewhere of a Marine in theatre with an A3 with what was clearly a Mk4 M1 fixed power scope. I think it was either mounted in G$G rings or Leupold Mk4 or Badger max rings. they could've been Nightforce rings as well but whatever the rings the scope was definately a Mk4 M1 like the older ultra not the new variable Mk4s. I'll have to find that pic again. If I do I'll make sure identity is not shown, I belive it was a closeup of the rifle sitting on a parapit on a roof in the sandbox.
BTW I want to agree with LatinaCovina that if the parts aren't ALL spec its not a full clone. However if a "placeholder" optic is used that at least matches some reports of temporary optics used by some Marines during ops, well its my opinion that it works towards trying to keep it as close as can be for the time being until an MST can be had. If it still is considered subpar as far as full historical clone goes, in my opinion yes in relation to exact spec but its still historical to me if an alternate optic had been reported as used at one time or another.

 

[totenkopf]

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)

Yes sir, all good, very good statements. Rhetorical exercise for sure....the only real M40A1 out there (as far as I know) is Kelly McMillan's M40A1. The rifle is entirely ALL USMC issue including the action. Given to the McMillan family by the Marine Corps as a tribute to Gale McMillan, it's awesome. I've examined it...perfect for sure. The rest of the "pieces" out there no matter how they're put together, how anyone imagines them, dreams, demands, states etc. are all built to resemble an original. The more original parts the better but still...
Frankly I love them all...awesome weapons. Its great to preserve the history, I'm glad I was able to use one officially in my 20years of service.

R/Mark Caracci
USN GMCM SEAL retired.

 

[BrianLara400]

Hi Mark, agree with your sentiments - in the strictest sense unless it was in USMC issue at some time or other (which at this point in time, I believe simply wont be encountered in civilian circles) all the lovely M40a1 rifles that get posted to these forums can be considered a tribute to/ replica of the genuine originals etc - but none the less still bloody fine rifles and there should be absolutely no shame in this.

I was also in contact with yourself at the time of this research and your response appears below vvvvvvvv - thanks for your contribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by BrianLara400

Hi Totenkopf, I 've been researching the use of L&S 10x Ultra scopes on M40a1's for a replica rifle build a friend of mine is doing and found an interesting post you made on the SH forum:

I was a Navy SEAL sniper 802-90s and we used Unertl 10xs in the late 80s. We went to the Leupold Ultra version but because Leupold wouldn't cater to sniper requirements at the time so we had to dial corrections for long shots, no mildot reticles. We used the help of Dick Thomas back in the 90s to provide the first multi-scope solutions and use different mildot configurations.

(I take it you are referring to the rifle being the M40a1 as you mention the optic prior to the Ultra was the Unertl 10x) Was wondering if you happened to remember any further details on this: -were there many Ultras in use(only roughly)?, - Do you happen to recall which were they i.e the M1, M2, M3, a etc . My research has turned up very little info on the mount/rail used itself, except that it was: - developed by the Crane - Naval surface warefare centre, had 20moa of cant/taper built in, and had 4 weaver slots in total 2x forward & 2x rear. 30mm L&S Ultra rings were used. Does this sound like the mounting arrangement used on the rifles you had? Any further info on the mount would be really appreciated as the details on this are proving to be the main stumbling block for our project. would you recall if it we lugged & designed to sit in the clipslot?
Thanks Mate, Regards ---- ------ (Australia)[/QUOTE]

We had clipshots on our SEAL M40A1s but not the .300wm rifles, they used Leupold Flat bases with no cant. We used .300wm for long shots, I think we were the first to use the Remington 700 .300WM with M4 ULTRA scopes. The scopes had duplex reticles in 10x, 16x and 20x. At the time Leupold refused to put MILDOTs in the scopes. We used the 16x and 20x version scopes on our .50cal SASR McMillan rifles and the .300wm rifles. The 308 M40A1 used the Unertl 10x marked "10x SNIPER." A very rare model of which I have 2 examples including my own.

Hope this helps

M
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[tylerw02]

Pre64, I don't think there was an a3 yet so I'm certain he was referencing an A1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jerry W Hudson II]

False

 

[pre64marksman]

I will say right now I'm not an expert on this, I'm just interested in this stuff like everyone else and getting info from people who were there, so I yeild to those individuals and everyone else interested in this stuff should also infer to those in the know. I've learned like most people a lot from this incredible forum as well as from Mel Ewing both his old site from 1996 time frame and his new page, and also from books and other online reading.

The above photo you posted with the AN/AVS night scope, that rail may be one type of rail that has been described elsewhere. Forgive me as its been a while but I discussed different rails with different people(Doc, TwoMan especially) used on a few A1. Again forgive me if I forgot if it was TwoMan or someone else but I remember hearing back from a helpful member that the night optic above was tested by west coast Marines on the A1 but it wasn't common to the A1.

Basically the info I remember best regarding scope rails and alternate scopes tested etc is that posted above by Brian, as well as info that TMA talks about in the midst of the m40a1 build thread. The above info posted by Brian taken from a discussion I had with Doc about rails used, mentions a rail possibly made by Marty as Doc mentions Marty and it is great info. And what TMA mentions in the m40a1 build thread about mid way(?-have to look up the post number), anyway its also really interesting as TwoMan mentions that during his service he started to take note of differences in rifles. In the build thread post TMA said he saw a (small number) of rifles with "pic" (piccatiny?) rail mounted slightly inset into a shallow machining into the M40a1s reciever top, forgive me if I butchered this info from TMA's post, I will try and get more details from him regarding what specifically this was.

 

[pre64marksman]

refering to my previous post, here is what TwoManAttack briefly mentions during his build thread post#969

"*Some of the rifles @ horno had a pic rail and rings. The top of the receiver was milled and the rail was recessed into the slightly milled reciever. I saw a couple other rifles at the school house like this. I have researched this heavily and got some answers. I have also seen a couple of pictures of other 8541s with their M40A1s and rail system. What I understand through my research is that some units and school houses were outfitted variants to the M40A1 depending on the units mission or to gather end user feedback. PM me for more info or if you have pictures of your M40A1 with a pic rail system." From -TWOMANATTACK M40A1 build thread

Again I'll get a hold of him to see if he has more specifics which he may or may not have. The above photo with the night optic maybe one of the few images of a rail on a m40a1 and is possibly a photo of what TMA was talking about since TMA mentions a piccatiny mount, whether it was minimal of cross slots or many cross slots in the base as posted in Jerry's posted photo.
I also want to clarify that I think I remember it being Mike Miller from Tac Ops Slings who specifically told me about the AN/PVS-10 night scope tested in limited number stateside.

 

[earthquake]

Fun thread! Thanks for bringing back fond memories. Here's some photos from the ones we used in 3/6 STA, mid 90's. I'll dig more up tomorrow. A legit M40A1 is a beat-up, ugly ass used rifle that continues to perform after taking as much abuse as a platoon full of hard charging Marines can dish out!

S/N


[MENTION=13734]Stone[/MENTION] Bay, ~1996...


A1 in Japan...




And just for fun and because...some Barretts...
Later model M82A1 with longer rail...


vs earlier model rail...


We never thought to take close up photos of these at the time...wish I had! And I wish we'd had better camera's back then. These old 35mm and 110 cameras weren't that great...they don't scan/transfer well to digital media.

 

[MescaBug]

Fun thread! Thanks for bringing back fond memories. Here's some photos from the ones we used in 3/6 STA, mid 90's. I'll dig more up tomorrow. A legit M40A1 is a beat-up, ugly ass used rifle that continues to perform after taking as much abuse as a platoon full of hard charging Marines can dish out

Well said! Nice pictures. Especially the first one with the old Kaddy case with name and serial on it

 

[pre64marksman]

Seeing the M82 with a Unertl on it gives me a, well you know.
Cool longbase one too!!!

 

[pre64marksman]

OK I recently talked to TWOMANATTACK tonite and picked his brain over one of the rigs he carried that was a special setup. I'm sure there's more to it but I didn't want to piss him off with too many questions. Bassically what he told me was he had a rig that was a limited affair, something to be tested, MEUSOC woulda used it. It was a special rail that would use G&G rings for the Unertl scope and than also mount an INOD on the base. Forgive me as I can't remember what an INOD was. The above photo graciously posted by Jerry Hudson shows a base with AN/PVS on it, this is not the base TMA described to me and I'm not sure the AN/PVS and INOD are the same thing but I didn't get into that with TMA, folks can correct me on that later.

The base he described was a piccatiny rail(described in build thread #969), the added info he gave though is that it was modified by shortening both the front and rear mounting so that it could only use one screw in the front and one in the back. To mount the base both front and rear receiver bridges had milled out area across the bridges that the front and rear portions of the base set in. These milled areas I think of as like the dovetail on a pistol slide but wider and much shallower. He mentions that it also possibly had a groove running down the center of the base. The below drawing forgive me is probably a bit exagerated especially the height of the base. I forgot to ask him what he thought the height was, I can get that info from him again later but I'll speculate that it maybe was lower than the current A3/A5 base even though the drawing looks like that. Actually I made the drawing from the base pictured by Jerry above and than shortened the ends with milled receiver tops as described by TMA. Not sure how short the ends were but if only 1 screw per end could be used than both ends were probably fairly short.

BTW the info BrianLara posted could very well be a totally different base to what TMA described to me. The former I was asking Doc762 about regarding the testing of the Ultra M2 or other scopes. I believe what TMA described was something to use with the std issue Unertl 10x in G&G rings, and than the ability to use night vision with the rail.
Forgive me TWOMANATTACK, TAC OPS, DOC762 if I've bungled up a lot of this stuff.
Feel free any of the above three names or others in the know correct me where I'm wrong in paraphrasing.

Pardon the drawing, it may be too high, and now that I look at it, it looks like a damn long action rather than a short, but its supposed to be the short action M700 per the M40a1. My apologies if this takes this thread off the rails, this discussion can go elsewhere if needed.

 

[lazy21]

If any of you need a MST100, please send a pm. I have a lot of 100 on order

 

[TWOMANATTACK]

Just to clarify some things on this subject. The rifle in question was "RETROFITTED" at SOTG Camp Pendleton. SOTG did some unauthorized maintenance on M40A1s. To including Simrad caps, that is why you see so many variations. This used to piss off 2112's because they are picky about who touches the guns with tools. Its like a Union construction company, they want to preserve their work. Some were done by SIMRAD and some were grown locally to Camp Pendleton. The picture above is not completely accurate, but close. The milling was done from front to back not just around the hole configurations. I have heard that it was done by DDROSS way back in the day and that the bases were ROSS bases. I have also talked to Dan Ross and discussed this. He explained that he had record of my weapons serial number. However, I was unable to verify that. So the picture is close, but better described as the way the rear decking is done on the M40A3 and M40A5, rather than in the picture. The rail did not come to the end of the action as shown and the rear only used 1 screw, however the front used 2 screws. The base also did not go to the rear of the action. But was recessed into the receiver. INOD was what the USMC was calling the prototype scopes change. Integrated Night Observation Devise. Day/Night scope combo. Hope that helps you guys that want to do a rail system on the A1. Remember that besides the Unertl mount and Rail early M40A1s used Redfield twist in bases also. That is confirmed by a training video from Quantico made in the early 80s.

OK I recently talked to TWOMANATTACK tonite and picked his brain over one of the rigs he carried that was a special setup. I'm sure there's more to it but I didn't want to piss him off with too many questions. Bassically what he told me was he had a rig that was a limited affair, something to be tested, MEUSOC woulda used it. It was a special rail that would use G&G rings for the Unertl scope and than also mount an INOD on the base. Forgive me as I can't remember what an INOD was. The above photo graciously posted by Jerry Hudson shows a base with AN/PVS on it, this is not the base TMA described to me and I'm not sure the AN/PVS and INOD are the same thing but I didn't get into that with TMA, folks can correct me on that later.

The base he described was a piccatiny rail(described in build thread #969), the added info he gave though is that it was modified by shortening both the front and rear mounting so that it could only use one screw in the front and one in the back. To mount the base both front and rear receiver bridges had milled out area across the bridges that the front and rear portions of the base set in. These milled areas I think of as like the dovetail on a pistol slide but wider and much shallower. He mentions that it also possibly had a groove running down the center of the base. The below drawing forgive me is probably a bit exagerated especially the height of the base. I forgot to ask him what he thought the height was, I can get that info from him again later but I'll speculate that it maybe was lower than the current A3/A5 base even though the drawing looks like that. Actually I made the drawing from the base pictured by Jerry above and than shortened the ends with milled receiver tops as described by TMA. Not sure how short the ends were but if only 1 screw per end could be used than both ends were probably fairly short.

BTW the info BrianLara posted could very well be a totally different base to what TMA described to me. The former I was asking Doc762 about regarding the testing of the Ultra M2 or other scopes. I believe what TMA described was something to use with the std issue Unertl 10x in G&G rings, and than the ability to use night vision with the rail.
Forgive me TWOMANATTACK, TAC OPS, DOC762 if I've bungled up a lot of this stuff.
Feel free any of the above three names or others in the know correct me where I'm wrong in paraphrasing.

Pardon the drawing, it may be too high, and now that I look at it, it looks like a damn long action rather than a short, but its supposed to be the short action M700 per the M40a1. My apologies if this takes this thread off the rails, this discussion can go elsewhere if needed.

 

[grunt0311]

Brian, I had a conversation in a pub with an 8541 that was staying with a friend of mine for a short while having just got out in 2004ish. I suppose the conversation started because we were all talking about shooting and hunting. I hadn't noticed, but he was wearing a unit tee shirt. He asked what gear I used, I suppose trying to figure if I was full of shit or not. When I told him I had a Leupold he had said somebody else in his unit had used one and he was jealous because it was so much better than the "piece of shit Unertl" he had to use in service. So he confirmed at least one Leupold being used on an M40A1--though it certainly wasn't issued that way. He also wasn't too pleased with the ammunition they had, either. It kind of put things into perspective when half of us bitch about how crummy a Leupold is, and we aren't even using them in the line of duty. All of us civilian shooters are pampered anymore with how good gear is a decade later.

I find this to be interesting and reminded me of when I was on the rifle range at Stone Bay in late 2005. We were done shooting for the day when a group of snipers (5 or 6) ran by with their sniper rifles and I noticed the a1 and it had a long scope on it. I would say that it was a Leupold, exactly what model and all that I have no idea as I saw it when he ran by. This happened twice during the week and I noticed it again the day after as well.

 

[pre64marksman]

Thanks for the updates on the info TwoMan! So the milling was across the top of the base(perpendicular to the actions bore axis/hole axis)? or was the milling down the center of the action top the same direction as the axis of the holes? The reason I ask is you mention the the milling was "front to back, not just around the screw holes." I guess this all would be easier with actual pictures from the makers. That's why this is tough.
BTW here's a good thread from TwoMan a while back talking about this as well but what TwoMan has stated above is more added detail which is nice.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...1st-mar-div-m40a1-picitiny-rail-ring-set.html

TwoMan and Doc762 and others on it discussing the same thing. I guess I should have posted my info there but didn't find that thread until recently. Cool that the talk is in this thread but I'm wondering if the info should continue in that thread rather then this in case this rail stuff is off topic in this thread. I'm happy to stay with this thread on this rail info but just asking just in case. Excellent info thanks much to TwoMan and others!
PS: What is shown is the pic by Grunt311 that has a clear pic with the VPS10 prone in the sand. What I'm seeing in my mind from what TwoMan is saying is the base overall was actually shorter than Grunt311's photo but again that's up to what TwoMan remembers.

 

[Tactical]

refering to my previous post, here is what TwoManAttack briefly mentions during his build thread post#969

"*Some of the rifles @ horno had a pic rail and rings. The top of the receiver was milled and the rail was recessed into the slightly milled reciever. I saw a couple other rifles at the school house like this. I have researched this heavily and got some answers. I have also seen a couple of pictures of other 8541s with their M40A1s and rail system. What I understand through my research is that some units and school houses were outfitted variants to the M40A1 depending on the units mission or to gather end user feedback. PM me for more info or if you have pictures of your M40A1 with a pic rail system." From -TWOMANATTACK M40A1 build thread

Again I'll get a hold of him to see if he has more specifics which he may or may not have. The above photo with the night optic maybe one of the few images of a rail on a m40a1 and is possibly a photo of what TMA was talking about since TMA mentions a piccatiny mount, whether it was minimal of cross slots or many cross slots in the base as posted in Jerry's posted photo.
I also want to clarify that I think I remember it being Mike Miller from Tac Ops Slings who specifically told me about the AN/PVS-10 night scope tested in limited number stateside.

Are you talking about me? Mike Miller from Tactical Intervention?

If so what context on the PVS10? I don't recall conversation but since I broke my back in 2010 I forget a lot. My recollection on PVS 10 is they had a few for testing but I don't recall where it went from there.

 

[pre64marksman]

Yes it was you Mike of Tactical Intervention slings.
Its unfortunately been a long time ago since we talked, and it may have been on SC forum on a very old thread rather than this forum. I can retract that I heard it from you if you think I'm wrong it that. TMA mentioned night vision as well but when I bugged TMA it was specifically about the rail mount rather than specifically any optic, although I think I originally asked if he had seen Leupolds at any point on A1s and he said no. The only person I heard from regarding leupold scopes on an A1 was Doc, but again what he told me is it was very limited instances and it was a temporary stopgap fitting of 1" tube Leupold scopes personally aquired for use until serviced Unertls were put back on. Mike you had mentioned a long time ago your experiance with the Ultra or Mk4 M3 for police work I think you said, or at the least you had personal experiance with it on your own time. You may have talked to me a long time ago about the Ultra M2 as well possibly Marine's testing it, but I don't recollect exactly. Again the only correspondance I saved regarding Ultra M2 was what I talked about with Doc762(info posted earlier this thread by BrianLara).

 

[pre64marksman]

I remember I may not have talked with you about the PVS10 but I was talking with you about a McMillan scope. I had an old photo attached to an SC thread from a magazine article of Thunder Ranch or maybe it was Gunsite training. Two Marines who participated in a training or maybe a compitition had their M40A1s with them. One was spec everything Unertl base and scope etc, had a spray camo pattern of "cream green/streaks of green." The other was the curious rifle. It mounted a McMillan scope with an ocular setup for night vision, or that's what it looked like. One picture the scope was std day setup and the other picture, hard to tell exactly but it had a box over the occular, so it seemed like a night kit for the scope. The overall scope had a large (50mm?) obj and was mounted on a long thin rail possibly a weaver crosslot type rather than a picatny. The rear scope ring was mounted to the rail above the ejection port becuase of the large occular taking up the space for a normal rear ring position- even more so with the cumbersome box fitting. The rail overhang the front of the action and the front scope ring appeared over the barrel if I remember it. I think it was SOF magazine from 1999 or abouts maybe 2000, I'm not sure I have the mag anymore. If I can find that thread I'll link it but it was a reallly long time ago.

As to the drawing having only one screw holding the base on the action's front ring, I thought TwoMan had told me it was held with only two screws total one in front and one in back but I understand now two screws in front and one in back. I TwoMan, you also told me there was a channel down the center of the base lenghtwise across all the mounting slots, like some current brand bases have. Is this correct or where you talking about something else?

 

[TWOMANATTACK]

Im going off of memory and I have been banged around quite a bit since then. The rail I used was recessed into the receiver NOT SURE HOW DEEP, the rail was zero moa and there was a chanel down the center of it. I only remember this becuase it was different than the Barrets rail. Back then the Barretts rail was elevated and nut and bolted to the welded part of the receiver had no center chanel. So the 2 were physically different.

As for M40A1 ... The best answers I have got on this subject have come from Special Operations training Group at Camp Pendleton. MEUSOC units at Horno trianed by SOTG got some different equipment. SOTG would use their own funding to do projects like PIC rails, Simrad caps, things that were not USMC SNIPER docterine. RTE Quantico would bitch about guns being illeaglly altered. Marines were not allowed to maintain the guns beyond paint and cleaning. This is partly how some USMC issued items ended up in public hands. Accountability was not that great and the mounts were not fatory serialized. If a 2112 received a rifle with a simrad cap that he didnt recognize he may have trashed it or did whatever with it. If SOTG pulled a Unertl base off and replaced it with a pic rail, who knows what happened to that base. There was alot of LOCAL fabrication done also. So the bases and simrad caps may have been a 1 man shop building something for SOTG. Dan Ross assured me that he had USMC receivers in his shop at one point for milling. He took my serial number to see if he had record of my gun. I have never heard the outcome. So this gun then goes to RTE and get the correct base reinstalled and replaces the pic rail it had .... and this is how some USMC items made it to the public. Again this is from memory... so it may be scewed. There are several ways to get USMC issued items to the public. parts that are commericall available and not serialized from the factory are easy ... VERY easy to swap out when the rifle is out of the armory... Bottom metal, pic rails, triggers. This will piss some anal 2111s off... but it happens.
thats my .2

I remember I may not have talked with you about the PVS10 but I was talking with you about a McMillan scope. I had an old photo attached to an SC thread from a magazine article of Thunder Ranch or maybe it was Gunsite training. Two Marines who participated in a training or maybe a compitition had their M40A1s with them. One was spec everything Unertl base and scope etc, had a spray camo pattern of "cream green/streaks of green." The other was the curious rifle. It mounted a McMillan scope with an ocular setup for night vision, or that's what it looked like. One picture the scope was std day setup and the other picture, hard to tell exactly but it had a box over the occular, so it seemed like a night kit for the scope. The overall scope had a large (50mm?) obj and was mounted on a long thin rail possibly a weaver crosslot type rather than a picatny. The rear scope ring was mounted to the rail above the ejection port becuase of the large occular taking up the space for a normal rear ring position- even more so with the cumbersome box fitting. The rail overhang the front of the action and the front scope ring appeared over the barrel if I remember it. I think it was SOF magazine from 1999 or abouts maybe 2000, I'm not sure I have the mag anymore. If I can find that thread I'll link it but it was a reallly long time ago.

As to the drawing having only one screw holding the base on the action's front ring, I thought TwoMan had told me it was held with only two screws total one in front and one in back but I understand now two screws in front and one in back. I TwoMan, you also told me there was a channel down the center of the base lenghtwise across all the mounting slots, like some current brand bases have. Is this correct or where you talking about something else?

 

[M40_A1]

SOTG would use their own funding to do projects like PIC rails, Simrad caps, things that were not USMC SNIPER docterine. RTE Quantico would bitch about guns being illeaglly altered.

Which is why I've been wondering how experimental anomalies of M40A1s have become the focus of this thread. I don't think it was the intent of the op. JMO.

 

[latinaincovina]

Makes no difference to me now what route this post takes. My question was answered when the owner Badger Ord chimed in... I got my answer. I would just see ALOT of people advertising M40A1s and when you look closely, they were some other configuration. Or they were missing important details. Anyhow, I don't mind the direction this has gone. It is actually kind of cool to see so many people interested in the same things. Enjoy.

Which is why I've been wondering how experimental anomalies of M40A1s have become the focus of this thread. I don't think it was the intent of the op. JMO.

 

[pre64marksman]

Well unfortunately I'm missing certain photos that I used to have, also threw out the mags the photos were taken from as well so I can't post pics of the person with McMillan da/night scope on a slim rail. But I do trust what you said regarding Ross and others rails so thanks on that!

 

[pre64marksman]

I guess what is nice is the real-deal issue rifle is still preffered but the anomolies are nice to talk about to. BrianLara and I share that interest. Again though for me the original issue with correct parts and optic is preferred.