Just wanted to share the Birth of my M40. Hopefully I'll get started on this next month.
![Image]()
1johnnyv
Birth of my M40
Just wanted to share the Birth of my M40. Hopefully I'll get started on this next month.
![Image]()
Congrats, looks like you have everything you need, including the elusive front sling swivel(!), early short shroud bolt, and early flat safety (pre-1968). You even have the brass pin for stock reinforcement. Very nice!
FWIW, I had one similar to yours built in early 2025 with the same Gen 2 Hi-Lux green scope (but without the early safety or bolt shroud). It has a Bartlein 1/10 twist 5R barrel. I built it for using in the CMP “Category B” 1954-76 VSM events. Good luck with the build(!).
![Image]()
FWIW, I had one similar to yours built in early 2025 with the same Gen 2 Hi-Lux green scope (but without the early safety or bolt shroud). It has a Bartlein 1/10 twist 5R barrel. I built it for using in the CMP “Category B” 1954-76 VSM events. Good luck with the build(!).
Thanks, I fabricated the front & rear swivels, had the brass rod in stock, Gunville stock, found a 6 digit donor rifle on GB with a tombstone trigger, steel floor plate & trigger guard, Mueller works barrel, & Hi-Lux scope. The scope base is NOS Redfield, but lacks the Redfield logo, Redfield 4 screw rings (base & rings have slot head screws). I did have to fabricate the front guard screw (slot head), as the donor rifle was an ADL with the shorter front screw.
![Image]()
![Image]()
BTW, has anyone had the opportunity to compare the Beever156 stock and the gunville stocks?
[/QUOTE]
I have used both stocks I’ll give my thoughts These are strictly my opinions based on the stocks I had in my hands. The beever stock is inletted better and the exterior is finished better however the forearm geometry is not correct and needs some work to resemble an original Also on the beever stock I had I felt like there was a little offset from the topside inlet to the bottom metal inlet and it needed some massaging.
Gunville stock is not inletted as cleanly and the exterior surfaces are rougher but really not an issue for me. Once the action and barrel were inletted and bottom metal was fit it went together very well. I think the overall the profile is closer to the originals. The rougher exterior sands in fairly easily Fitting the aluminum buttplates on both stocks was about the same. I definitely like the wood on the Gunville stock better
Both stocks have their own challenges but neither was extremely difficult to complete. No significant difference in performance on target
[/QUOTE]
I have used both stocks I’ll give my thoughts These are strictly my opinions based on the stocks I had in my hands. The beever stock is inletted better and the exterior is finished better however the forearm geometry is not correct and needs some work to resemble an original Also on the beever stock I had I felt like there was a little offset from the topside inlet to the bottom metal inlet and it needed some massaging.
Gunville stock is not inletted as cleanly and the exterior surfaces are rougher but really not an issue for me. Once the action and barrel were inletted and bottom metal was fit it went together very well. I think the overall the profile is closer to the originals. The rougher exterior sands in fairly easily Fitting the aluminum buttplates on both stocks was about the same. I definitely like the wood on the Gunville stock better
Both stocks have their own challenges but neither was extremely difficult to complete. No significant difference in performance on target
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
