M40 push feed & trigger system

B

bamaranger

New member
One reads so much about controlled feed bolts and their desirability for a dangerous game rifle. It would seem then that controlled feed would be ideal for a "combat" bolt as well. Also, the simple, heavy duty parts in the Mauser and Win 70 trigger systems are often applauded as durable and desirable in rough use rifles.

How then, in 1966, did the USMC end up with a push feed action, and the small parts Rem trigger in the Rem M700 (1962) as the basis for the M40 sniper, ......and it continues today? Certainly, the system has proven itself, but I would think that 50 yrs ago, there would have been a huge clamor from old school Corps rifleman for a rifle incorporating the HD features of the Win 70 or something based on a Mauser type controlled action. Heck, Carlos Hathcock shot an old M70 rifle in '06 if I'm not mistaken.

I realize the controlled M70 was gone by 1966, ..........did we go with the Rem by default? Or as in so many things gov't, was it cost? Other.............?
 
Remington 700s were a lot cheaper than a Winchester Model 70, and the controlled round feature was gone by then anyway.
 
one of the things i like about rem push feed rifles, is that even when pulling the bolt back after firing a round real slow is that the fired case is ejected smartly. i own both types of rifles and have used them both in hunting trips in africa with no problems at all. shooting animals from cape buffalo to dikkers. eastbank.
 
Correct that the military doesn't use CRF on their bolt rifles. But, I believe it is because very few rifles were using that feature at the time and cost. Heck, I own a 700 that I've shot for 38 years and never a failure. I see nothing wrong with a push feed action or consider it less desirable, it has proven itself.

Some thoughts on them:

1. None of the major bolt action sniper rifles used by the US military in the last few decades have employed a controlled feed action.

2. In the Precision Rifle Series competition the dominant action type among the top PRS competitors are the Remington-style push feed.
 
There are a lot of misconceptions about PF vs CRF. As far as feeding rounds from the magazine to the chamber a PF is at least as reliable as CRF, possibly more reliable. The advantage of CRF is a much stronger foolproof ejection and extraction system that will function even if the rifle is filthy. This was a huge advantage for the doughboys of WW-1 fighting in muddy trench warfare.

Most of the guys who hunted dangerous game years ago in Africa and Alaska went on hunts or safaris that often meant weeks or even months in the field. Slogging through swamps in Africa or hunting from boats in muddy, snowy and icy conditions in Alaska often meant hunting with a dirty rifle. A CRF rifle could be counted on to eject and extract more reliably under harsh conditions. Feeding reliably into the chamber has never really been an advantage for CRF. But since they are known as "Controlled Round Feeding" most people assume this is the real advantage. It has always been about reliable extraction and ejection. As long as a PF rifle is kept clean it'll function just as reliably and can be manufactured for less money. There is a strong argument that a PF is easier to make more accurate as well.

Today most hunters, even soldiers, take a clean rifle out of the safe, hunt with it, clean it and return it the safe at the end of the day. Under those conditions the advantages of CRF will never become apparent.

Even in the military the "sniper" rifles are rarely put in a position where they are used in truly harsh conditions. With helicopters and modern mechanized methods troops aren't left in the field for weeks and months like during WW-2. There are opportunities to return to safe areas and keep weapons cleaned and maintained.

As a hunter I own and use both types. Most of the time I could care less, but if forced to choose only 1 I have a preference for CRF. If going on a backpack or horseback hunt, or in harsh weather conditions where I'll be miles from a road for extended periods I wouldn't consider anything but one of my CRF rifles.
 
"one of the things i like about rem push feed rifles, is that even when pulling the bolt back after firing a round real slow is that the fired case is ejected smartly."

I've used both types and will take the above advantage every time.
I'll also take the advantages of the Rem 700 over the M70 every time. The Remington ( M-40 )was a handy package compared to the M-70. Not saying that the M-70 couldn't have been modded into a better configuration but it wasn't.
 
Bamaranger, I can speak to this question directly.

In the mid to late 50s the USMC used Winchester M70s as "sniper" and target rifles. In 1964 Winchester dropped the M70 and made a new rifle which they called the M70, but was clearly not the same rifle. Not one part would interchange.

1964.
Remember that year?
What was going on in 64?
VIETNAM.

So the USMC needed a rifle and they needed it NOW and the armories entire system was needing to be changed because as I said, not one part of the "new M70" would fit or interchange with the old real M70.

So the USMC put out a call for a rifle. Savage and Remington were the only 2 that answered. Winchester with their the "new M-70" was not in a position to produce what the Marines needed, and it turned out that neither was Savage.

So the M700 was "the pick" Actually the M700 was the only choice. it was picked not because it was best, but because it was the only choice.

And those of us that remember the original M40s (Remington 700s with wood stocks and Remington barrels) can tell you without any doubt at all that they were NOT as reliable as the old M70s. But it's what we had so it's what we used.

As the modification went on for many years the M40 was upgraded to the M40-A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5. It gets better and better. The one thing I will give them is that they are quite accurate, and now that the USMC is into the A5 we have a rifle that is about 75% as good as what it replaced.

Sorry Remington fans, but these are facts, not opinions.

In the days of pre-1964 and backwards, the armorers never had any issues with replacing broken extractors, putting bolt handles back onto bolts, or having triggers break of fall apart. The newer M40 rifles do have stronger better stocks, but that is not a fair argument in favor for the M700 as that same stocks can be made for any action and Remington doesn't make them at all. They buy them.

Anyway I hope this answers the question.

The last question I anticipate is "why don't they change now, being that other better rifle actions are now available?

Well the rifles themselves are actually the cheapest part of the system.
All the support for that weapon is involved. To chance would necessitate changing everything from tools to parts to scope mounts, all new contracts with stock makers and barrel makers, and an entire new set of school classes to support the new rifle.

But as a gunsmith working in 2016, if I had 15 rifles set in front of me from every maker I can think of, from every country that imports them into the USA, plus what is made in the USA, I have to say (hate male now going to come my way) the Remington M700 is the very worst one.

I am not calling it trash. But I am saying that no one I know of makes one that has as many problems, and every rifle I know of made in the last 40 years now, other than the m700, has fewer problems.

That could change, but in the years of gunsmithing I have behind me, I can look at major repairs of bolt actions and in all the rifles I have repaired from every maker, if I combine them ALL together I come up with about 1/3 the number of major repairs I have done to M700s.
Those are the facts ------------hate mail or not.

I think I would make that change for US Snipers if I were in charge, but last I checked, I am not.
 
Last edited:
failure

Interestingly, running right below this thread at this moment is another where a fella looses an opportunity on game because his Rem 700 burped due to a failure to eject/stuck plunger. That small plunger, driven by its small spring, and running in its small tunnel, is one of those features that concern me in a rifle that is destined for combat and not inconceivably, rough use and difficult conditions, dirt, grit and possible limited maintenance. I have seen the same failure on Savages and AR's.

It would be interesting to see some type of reliability percentage on M700/M40 as USED BY THE MILITARY.......not sporting use. How many have come in for repair or have failed over the course of the years?
 
Another part of the issue that many miss is the two very different roles for PF vs CRF.

If I'm using a boltgun on dangerous game, shots may be close & that game may be coming after me. Again- close.
I want a design that will feed as reliably as possible CLOSE UP.
I do not have time to be clearing misfeeds & multiple cycling trying to get a followup round off.

A military sniper typically operates (as in shoots) from a static position at some distance.
If a PF misfeeds, usually time to clear it or withdraw well before an opponent is on top of him.
Snipers generally don't have to be firing multiple shots at 25 yards & less.
Denis
 
close

The idea that the enemy cannot easily close on the sniper & his spotter or team, and there is some type of support, can certainly be considered in our conversation. But who really knows what will go down once deployed?

But why possibly compromise such a highly trained shooter, with a system that has design features that allow for such burps?

I just learned of the FN SPR in another thread.
In bamarangers US military, we'd be shooting SPR's .
 
Wyosmith;

I take your word at 100%. My only observation is that there are a LOT of Rem 700s out there, and their share of the market may influence the number of repairs you see.

That's not to say that most other rifles out there aren't better. They have to be to compete with Rem 700, which is such a dominate market player.
 
One reads so much about controlled feed bolts and their desirability for a dangerous game rifle. It would seem then that controlled feed would be ideal for a "combat" bolt as well. Also, the simple, heavy duty parts in the Mauser and Win 70 trigger systems are often applauded as durable and desirable in rough use rifles.

How then, in 1966, did the USMC end up with a push feed action, and the small parts Rem trigger in the Rem M700 (1962) as the basis for the M40 sniper, ......and it continues today? Certainly, the system has proven itself, but I would think that 50 yrs ago, there would have been a huge clamor from old school Corps rifleman for a rifle incorporating the HD features of the Win 70 or something based on a Mauser type controlled action. Heck, Carlos Hathcock shot an old M70 rifle in '06 if I'm not mistaken.

I realize the controlled M70 was gone by 1966, ..........did we go with the Rem by default? Or as in so many things gov't, was it cost? Other.............?
bamaranger is offline
Click to expand...

Wyosmith's answer is a large part of the story, I'd like to add to it.

The USMC Precision Weapons Section is a bit like the Army Marksmanship Units Custom Firearms Shop in that it is filled with the best armorers that they can fill it with. The AMU stood up in the late 50s by order of President Eisenhower, and the USMC PWS stood up in 1966.

If you were going to build a precision rifle in 1966 based on American components, you had the choice of off the shelf actions of the Rem700 or the post-64 Win M70. The Pre-64s stayed in the inventory for the rifle teams, and quite a few 1903 Springfield actions were laying around (and the Unertl Scopes the USMC used in WWII on those 1903 sniper rifles stayed well into use through Vietnam).

The second thing to note is that the PWS supports the rifle teams in addition to the snipers, and so building a target rifle on a Rem700 action wasn't much of a reach to make it into a sniper rifle.

In 1966, it just made sense to go with Remington. Of course now the Secret Service is using an FN SPR built on a Classic M70 action, so CRF sniper rifles are still on the scene. The Brits Parker Hale (aka Canadian C3) sniper rifles were built on Santa Barbara Mauser actions, and I've not heard but good things about their accuracy. But, in the US there weren't any quality CRF manufacturers worth noting. Even the Ruger M77 wasn't even designed until 1968, and didn't become a true CRF action until 1991 with the MkII version.

Now...now we are stuck with decades of experience keeping M700 based sniper rifles running in the field, just as we are stuck with the M16 and all of its upgrades to keep making it better in the field. There are better options out there, but they aren't cheaper with a built in knowledge base.

Jimro
 
Bama,
I used those two examples as simple illustrations of general principles.

Of course an enemy "can" close in on a sniper.
A sniper can also get hit by a falling meteorite or fall into a chasm suddenly created by a major earthquake.

I don't mean that as sarcasm, just pointing out that the PRIMARY mission of a sniper is long-range engagements, and as such any primary specialized equipment choices are going to be made based on that premise.

And you also have decades of entrenched military tradition to consider, as mentioned above.

For normal hunting, where the only thing a PF may cost you is a deer or elk, it's a non-issue.

As a dangerous game getter, such as an African context, the CRF is generally preferred because such encounters are typically fairly close. As a hostile critter shield, where it may be bear, moose (which can be quite dangerous), and so on, there's little danger from them at 100 yards & father out.

If you're hunting them at that distance, a PF probably isn't going to be much of a handicap.
But- the danger comes when they get in closer, and at that point a PF fumble that would not have happened with a CRF design can cost you greatly.

To put it maybe more succinctly: I personally want a CRF for a general-purpose rifle because I think it's more dependable in a close-in pinch.
That's just me, and that's why.

The only bolt-action exceptions for me would be a pure hunter, like my Weatherby Vanguard .223 dedicated coyote gun.


If it's a bolt-action rifle carried for defense against critters, and I have three, open sights for quick acquisition & very definitely CRF.

If I were building a dedicated long-range rifle, I could easily live with a PF.

Two different roles, for my purposes.
Denis
 
A bit of history on military sniper equipment, and the hunting rifles that exist out there...

In WWII the most common sniper rifles were pretty evenly split between CRF (Mauser, Springfield, Arisaka) and PRF (SMLE, Mosin-Nagant, M1 Garand). Of the sniper rifles from WWII, only the Mosin-Nagant is still "going strong" simply because there were a heck of a lot of them dumped on the international market after the fall of the USSR.

After WWII most military forces focused on going to a semi-auto sniper rifle. The Garand, M14, and SVD served alongside Mosin-Nagants, Rem700, and Win70 rifles in Vietnam. Sniper doctrine differed between the Soviets and Western forces, so equipment began to differ over the course of time.

Right now the Russians have the most extensive set of subsonic sniper rifles of any military force, with 9x39 being the most common, and the new 12.7x55 being less common. Those are essentially equivalent to the 300 Whisper and 510 Whisper which the US military has not adopted. The Russians clearly value silenced subsonic sniper rifles for engagements within 400 meters. The only thing I've seen that is comparable is a silence M4 used for urban operations, as no one really cared about the supersonic crack of the bullet.

It is rather funny but the US military used the M1 Carbine night sniper variant used in Korea was updated with an M16 night sniper variant used in Vietnam. Now night vision is standard for the normal sniper rifles and not just for close in night engagements in Southeast Asia.

So you could say that sniper rifles come in bolt action, either CRF or PRF, and semi auto variants. More and more the semi-auto variants are preferred for "normal" operations and the bolt action rifles are being chambered in 300 Win Mag or 338 Lapua Magnum for longer shots.

And there you have the problem where you have to ask, "what do I really want my snipers to do for me?" and SOCOM has a very different answer than the regular Army or USMC. The regular forces use Snipers as combat multipliers, scouts, and forward observers. The SOCOM side of the house uses Snipers for direct action on high payoff targets, as a security force for the objective, and deep recon. Meanwhile the "knife fight" distances inside 400 meters at night aren't going away, which is why so many designated marksman and "advanced marksmanship training" programs have popped up in the Army and USMC to bring standard Infantrymen up to speed on filling in a role that was dedicated to snipers only a generation ago.

One of the reasons that CRF is popular with hunters is that it will always pull "something" from the chamber. Often it will just rip out the back end of the brass and leave the front stuck in there. Back when powder technology was very much "temperature unstable" case capacity was larger than needed to allow for some wiggle room. Why else is there an 11mm air gap in an M2 Ball loading for 30-06? Why else did the 416 Rigby operate at 30-30 pressure levels? Powder technology has come a long time since then, and we are all the better for it, but many hunters still cling to a CRF rifle because they are mechanically simpler and will always pull "something" out.

There is nothing wrong with building a sniper rifle on either a CRF or PRF action, certainly not with the ammunition we have in the inventory now. But other than dedicated long range rifles, the bulk of sniper rifles are now semi-automatic. The M14s brought back into active service were called "SDM" rifles in the Army, but were used as Sniper rifles by the Navy and SOCOM elements. The Russians are almost exclusively (not entirely) semi-auto at the tactical level (platoon sniper position).

I wish I could give a good explanation why everything works the way it does, but sometimes it is just nations keep adopting what they have. The 9x39 sniper rifle look amazingly like an AK, because it was based off the AK platform for rifle and cartridge. It isn't perfect, but it does the job.

Jimro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top