Remington 722?

 

No, Remington 700.

 

Absolutely fake for many reasons. Not an evaluation rifle, not a USMC prototype or test rifle. Not even close to being real. The 5 digit receiver is from early 1963, nowhere near the 6 digit serial number test rifles from years later in the 168xxx serial number range, and issued guns in the 221xxx, 224xxx, and 322xxx serial number ranges. Not even going to bother with the rest of everything that's blatantly wrong with it, you guys should easily be able to spot everything else that's wrong. USMC test rifles were years later and were literally commercial production rifles (both 40X and 700SA). There's nothing right about this fake rifle.

And if it were real, he'd have a $30,000 price on it, not $5k. Fake and the seller probably knows it. Even some of the information the seller provided in the email in the OP's post is wrong. It's laughable that the seller thinks this is a 1966 serial number receiver too (it's moat likely 1963 production).

Edit to add the following information:

Here's some information on early Remington Model 700 serial numbers. Early Model 700 production began in 1962 (serial number 1) and stopped midway through 1968 (somewhere in the mid 3xx,xxx range). The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 led to many changes with firearm manufacturing, and Remington resumed Model 700 production after the GCA somewhere in the low 6 million serial number range (for example, the late 1968 M40's like the one at the CMP auction site right now in the 6257xxx range). So, somewhere in 1968 Remington jumped from the mid 3xx,xxx (6 digit) to the 6,xxx,xxx (7 digit) serial number ranges.

With that information on hand, it's very easy to determine roughly how many early Remington 700's were made per year. 1968 minus 1962 equals 6 years of Model 700 production. We know that Remington stopped the 6 digit serial number production sometime in 1968. For the sake of this example, let's say that Remington stopped production at about serial number 370,000 (nice round higher 3xx,xxx range number we can use). 370,000 divided by 6 years of early Model 700 products equals about 61,666 early Model 700's produced eact year. This isn't a perfect number eact year, I'd expect the first and last years to have smaller numbers of early Model 700's produced and whatever other annual production variables that existed at the time. Regardless, a production rate of about 61,666 early Model 700's produced each year from 1962 to 1968 is a good place to start.

The rifle at the GB auction is 66,689, a 5 digit serial number rifle. If the first year of early Model 700 production (1962) was less than, equal to or very slightly more than about 61,666 estimated annual rifle production, then serial number 66,689 on GB would have to have been made in the 2nd year of production (1963). If only 6,000 rifles were made in the first year of production (1962), then the GB rifle would have been made in late 1963. If 65,000 rifles were made in the first year of production (1962), then the GB rifle would have been made in early 1963.

See where I'm going with all of this? Any way you cut it, it's pretty much a 100% chance that serial number 66,689 on GB was made in 1963, not 1966 like the seller says it was. The seller is going off of the barrel date. The barrel could be real and put on the rifle, that's it. Real M40 barrels are rare, but they're out there and plenty of them have been used on M40 clone builds.

 

The stock is an early PSS and NOT an M40. PSS give aways are: the angular fore end tip, lack of the reinforcement hump behind the safety, finally, even if the fore end was reprofiled, you still see the brass reenforcing screw on both sides. Clear indicator of a PSS stock. The brass reinforcement screw should only be visible on the left side. Not the right.

As Ryan already mentioned, there is a lot wrong with that rifle.

 

Typical gunbroker BS from an unscrupulous seller. It’s a nice replica, but that’s all is it - a nice replica with a very early receiver. Barrel might be real, but that’s it.

 

This is a problem I have with clones; they can get passed off as original. And it takes an expert like USMC to spot the obvious deficiencies.
I did an M40 clone some years ago (had the receive cut appropriately), but used a recent receiver and barrel. After my death, it will be glaringly obvious it is not an original. But is shoots great.
The internet has created a whole new class of thieves.

 

The internet has created a whole new class of thieves.

That’s true, but it has also created a whole new class of sleuths to keep the thieves at bay. Something that was much harder in the old days.

 

...

 

I got another email from the seller after pointing out some of the issues with his claim, but he stands by it. I asked him for some provenance to support his position.

 

He has no provenance to support his claims and insists its an early evaluation rifle. Wishful thinker, or beautiful dreamer....

 

Knowing what a description should say and what is left out says allot without saying anything.

 

Accurate or not, all these m40 posts and these pics just sent to me have me thinking I should get a rem700 of my own soon. Too bad I just can’t justify the smear stock prices.

 

You wouldnt put a smear stock on an M40 anyway.

 

One less thing to worry about then

 

He has no provenance to support his claims and insists it’s ote an early evaluation rifle. Wishful thinker, or beautiful dreamer....

Note the serial number of one the ACTUAL 5 prototype M40s that was kept by the Remington Arms museum. Also note the barrel date stamps on the early M40s(USMC order from 1966). Again, gunbroker guy is full of BS…

 

Is that info from one of the Senich books?

 

No, it’s from Joe Poyer’s book on collecting 1945-2000 US sniper rifles. He utilized the archives at Remington via the Remington Historical Society for that data.

Amazon.com

 

Listing ended. See if it gets relisted with a different price and info. Could be someone made him an offer.