When I developed the M40 for the military .... " I dint need to be convinced, but lends some non-credence to the "700 sucks" themes.
Interesting and not surprising that you mentioned the Military version called the M40.
Most people think that just because the military has adopted it that it therfore follows that it is the best there is. Unfortunately reality is quite different.
Down through history there have been many prestigious weapons, a lot of which simply were not the best design of the time. Examples are legion, including the German Luger, Italian carcano, U.S. M16 and so forth.
Associating a famous person with the weapon such as George Luger or Gale Mcmillan cuts no ice either. Both men and many like them were in it to make money. Nothing wrong with that but if Gale Mcmillian had been told to develope the 1960's era Mossberg 800 rifle or update the WWII Japanese Arisaka for the U.S. military many now would consider them to be the ultimate sniper rifle. Maybe true in the regards to an updated Arisaka but defineately not in an updated Mossberg 800.
The Military folks even considered at one time issuing spare bolts with the M40 in case of extractor breakage because the extractor is not readily replaceable in the field.
One must remember also that the Military M40 is not a stock M700 but a completely rebuilt gun. Some of the examples I looked at had the bottom stamped sheet metal trigger guard replaced with a heavy duty all steel trigger guard.
I think if one reads Peter Senich's books on the M700 as used in Viet-Nam the rifles short commings especially in regards to the unreliable trigger when used under extreme combat conditions proves how superior other battle rifles were which at the time included the Pre-64 Winchester whose trigger system did not fail under identical circumstances when used early in the Viet Nam war.
One must not just look at the extreme accuracy aspect of the M700 (granted it is a very accurate rifle) but one must look at the overall performance of the weapon under severe conditions. The ability to replace an extractor or take out the firing pin without the use of tools or the reliability of the trigger and extractor, and the gas protection system are all factors that weigh heavily in the overall evaluation of the performance of the weapon under extrememe conditions.
The replacement of the bottom metal in the M700 to transform it into a more rugged M40 is just another example of how the designers had to overcome many of the shortcomings of the M700 as it was found in its original civilian produced configuration. Problem mechanical aspects which included:
the trigger design
and extractor design,
and gas escape system,
and the short and weak ignition system
and push feed operation, that
never were modified to the point that made it ever remotely the equal of say the M98 Mauser or even the Pre-64 Winchester.
In short, the M700 that was developed into the M40 was a desperation adoption of an off the shelf civilian rifle that was needed under hurry up war time conditions during the Viet Nam war. It was a mistake then and is still a mistake today. But like any weapons system the Military will fight to keep it even when it is proven that something better is out there to replace it. It is just history repeating itself over and over again.
So what would I recommend today?
Because of the many complex machining operations the M98 would not be the first choice of the military. Not because it could not be done and not because it would be too expensive. Lets face it when you pay billions for just one jet plane the money is certainly there to make a few high quality rifles but it does not fit in with the lets make it as fast and cheap as possible. Small arms are also given extemely low budget priority because they are not considered as important as say jet planes. This does have some merit in producing the average battle rifle because they are used up so quickly in combat but I think the sniper rifle that is used in far less numbers certainly should be an exception to the rule. The M98 could even be made with investment casting today and still produce a worthy battle rifle if top of the line castings were used.
Another option would be a return to the M70 Winchester. Cheaper to make than the M98 although not as good or realiable a weapon in terms of ignition and gas escape provisions. But a much better choice than the M40 because of the M70 Winchesters superior trigger and extractor which includes not only the Pre-64 but also the Post-64.
So whats all this mean to the average Joe shooter who loves his Remington 700. Absolutely nothing. It works for him under his operating conditions, its accurate and affordable and to him it is the ultimate rifle.
But for the worlds military's or the Globe trotting hunter hanging off the side of the Tibetan mountain in pursuit of Marco Polo sheep during an ice storm and where thousands of dollars have been spent on a very expenisve hunt you won't find many carring the Remington 700. Not if they have done their homework right.
Interesting and not surprising that you mentioned the Military version called the M40.
Most people think that just because the military has adopted it that it therfore follows that it is the best there is. Unfortunately reality is quite different.
Down through history there have been many prestigious weapons, a lot of which simply were not the best design of the time. Examples are legion, including the German Luger, Italian carcano, U.S. M16 and so forth.
Associating a famous person with the weapon such as George Luger or Gale Mcmillan cuts no ice either. Both men and many like them were in it to make money. Nothing wrong with that but if Gale Mcmillian had been told to develope the 1960's era Mossberg 800 rifle or update the WWII Japanese Arisaka for the U.S. military many now would consider them to be the ultimate sniper rifle. Maybe true in the regards to an updated Arisaka but defineately not in an updated Mossberg 800.
The Military folks even considered at one time issuing spare bolts with the M40 in case of extractor breakage because the extractor is not readily replaceable in the field.
One must remember also that the Military M40 is not a stock M700 but a completely rebuilt gun. Some of the examples I looked at had the bottom stamped sheet metal trigger guard replaced with a heavy duty all steel trigger guard.
I think if one reads Peter Senich's books on the M700 as used in Viet-Nam the rifles short commings especially in regards to the unreliable trigger when used under extreme combat conditions proves how superior other battle rifles were which at the time included the Pre-64 Winchester whose trigger system did not fail under identical circumstances when used early in the Viet Nam war.
One must not just look at the extreme accuracy aspect of the M700 (granted it is a very accurate rifle) but one must look at the overall performance of the weapon under severe conditions. The ability to replace an extractor or take out the firing pin without the use of tools or the reliability of the trigger and extractor, and the gas protection system are all factors that weigh heavily in the overall evaluation of the performance of the weapon under extrememe conditions.
The replacement of the bottom metal in the M700 to transform it into a more rugged M40 is just another example of how the designers had to overcome many of the shortcomings of the M700 as it was found in its original civilian produced configuration. Problem mechanical aspects which included:
the trigger design
and extractor design,
and gas escape system,
and the short and weak ignition system
and push feed operation, that
never were modified to the point that made it ever remotely the equal of say the M98 Mauser or even the Pre-64 Winchester.
In short, the M700 that was developed into the M40 was a desperation adoption of an off the shelf civilian rifle that was needed under hurry up war time conditions during the Viet Nam war. It was a mistake then and is still a mistake today. But like any weapons system the Military will fight to keep it even when it is proven that something better is out there to replace it. It is just history repeating itself over and over again.
So what would I recommend today?
Because of the many complex machining operations the M98 would not be the first choice of the military. Not because it could not be done and not because it would be too expensive. Lets face it when you pay billions for just one jet plane the money is certainly there to make a few high quality rifles but it does not fit in with the lets make it as fast and cheap as possible. Small arms are also given extemely low budget priority because they are not considered as important as say jet planes. This does have some merit in producing the average battle rifle because they are used up so quickly in combat but I think the sniper rifle that is used in far less numbers certainly should be an exception to the rule. The M98 could even be made with investment casting today and still produce a worthy battle rifle if top of the line castings were used.
Another option would be a return to the M70 Winchester. Cheaper to make than the M98 although not as good or realiable a weapon in terms of ignition and gas escape provisions. But a much better choice than the M40 because of the M70 Winchesters superior trigger and extractor which includes not only the Pre-64 but also the Post-64.
So whats all this mean to the average Joe shooter who loves his Remington 700. Absolutely nothing. It works for him under his operating conditions, its accurate and affordable and to him it is the ultimate rifle.
But for the worlds military's or the Globe trotting hunter hanging off the side of the Tibetan mountain in pursuit of Marco Polo sheep during an ice storm and where thousands of dollars have been spent on a very expenisve hunt you won't find many carring the Remington 700. Not if they have done their homework right.
, Art
