I am hoping members of this forum might be able to share information concerning the use of Remington 722s by U.S. military. I recently acquired an interesting variant of this rifle that that may have been used by the military. My rifle is an excellent condition Remington Model 722 rifle manufactured in April 1953. The scope mount is a 1950s vintage Buehler mount marked “22” on its underside. The most interesting aspect of this rifle is its scope. The scope is a USMC-contract Kollmorgen MC-1 marked “U.S.”and "FSN-1240-647-1006". Both the Kollmorgen scope and Buehler mount match the rifle in excellent condition. Another interesting thing about this rifle is that it was originally manufactured in .300 Savage and then subsequently re-bored in .308 Win. The last zero on the “.300 Sav.” marking on the barrel was struck through to resemble an 8 for .308 I believe. Examination of the rear sight dovetail base on the barrel shows that a rear sight was never added as it is in perfect unmarred condition. The same can also be said for the front sight as there is no evidence of soldering or drilling on the barrel for a front sight. I find it interesting that my rifle never had iron sights on it even though it should have as a 1953 standard grade 722. This rifle shoots wonderfully at both 300 and 600 yds.
The story of how I came into this rifle is that it was won approximately 5 years ago through an auction company. The previous owner of the rifle told me that the rifle was a sleeper as the auction company did not correctly identify the scope as a USMC-contract Kollmorgen MC-1. The rifle was listed as a .300 Savage Remington 722 sporting rifle with a Kollmorgen scope. The previous owner suspects it may have been used in the mid to late 50's for testing & evaluation. He indicated that the serial number is in a known date and serial number range of military purchases per feedback he received from John Lacy, author of The Remington 700 book. He also indicated that that other 722 rifles like this one were known to exist in the collection of the late Peter Cardone of Stormville, NY.
I submitted Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to various branches of the Armed Services for serial number data on these rifles. I received a list of 51 serial numbers for Remington 722s currently maintained in the Department of Defense small arms registries. The serial numbers span from the 1xxx digit serial number range to as high as 7,088,xxx range, with the majority of 722s falling in the 400,xxx serial number range. The DoD indicated that this list of 51, includes both active and inactive status rifles, submitted to the electronic registries going back to 1974. Paper records of serial number data that existed prior to 1974 may have also been included in the creation of data for the registries, but this was not usually the norm. Unfortunately, my rifle, 291,2xx was not in this list of 51 Remington 722s which may not mean anything considering the release of military surplus to the civilian market in the years prior to 1974.
This is all I know about the rifle at this time. I suspect that it is probably not a coincident that you have an equal condition rifle, scope and mount put together like this. Furthermore, I’ve asked myself why would someone try to fake a 722 rifle with a MC-1 scope and I can’t come up with a good answer. Surely, with the scarcity of MC-1 sniper scopes, I can think of many more reasons to use that scope on a legit, documented M1C Garand sniper rifle rather than a Remington 722. Perhaps with the development of the T65 cartridge (7.62mm/.308) by the U.S. Army in the early 1950s, the Marine Corps wanted to evaluate this cartridge for ballistics characteristics and perhaps had identified the Remington 700 series as the potential basis for their next generation sniper rifle. If my information is correct, the Kollmorgen MC-1 scope was a Marine Corps-only inventory item so that might help point to its lineage. It’s worth mentioning that the rifle itself has no military markings visible, such as “U.S. Property” on the receiver or “7.62 mm” on the barrel. I have not pulled the stock as I tend to doubt it would be marked under the wood.
I am open to comments, questions, and most importantly, recommendations concerning other sources of information I should look to.
Regards,
Brian
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_0095.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_0098.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_0109.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_3644.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_0101.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ ... 0_0106.jpg
Military use of the 722--Info Needed
-
Rich/WIS
Mil 722
Possible, but some items are curious. Biggest issue for me is the restamp of caliber, why 308 instead of 7.62. Is it a 308? You may need to take a chamber cast to be sure, at least try to chamber a fired 308 case. If it was converted from 300 to 308, why didn't they strike out the SAV stamp.
I can't see a project to test the feasability of using a Rem 722 as a sniper rifle being so poorly funded that it would be necessary to rechamber a rifle rather than buy one new in 308/7.62, particularly a sporter versus a match configuration.
Being a retired GI I can see an enterprising Marine having a rifle rechambered to a caliber easier to obtain cheaply and installing a "liberated" scope on it. It may not seem likely but I have seen it done.
The services combined a lot of small arms development at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The work on many of the rifles of the late 70's and 80's was done there. You might try calling the Museum there and explaining the problem. They may not know, but they may have contacts who could give you better guess as to how that rifle came to be.
I can't see a project to test the feasability of using a Rem 722 as a sniper rifle being so poorly funded that it would be necessary to rechamber a rifle rather than buy one new in 308/7.62, particularly a sporter versus a match configuration.
Being a retired GI I can see an enterprising Marine having a rifle rechambered to a caliber easier to obtain cheaply and installing a "liberated" scope on it. It may not seem likely but I have seen it done.
The services combined a lot of small arms development at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The work on many of the rifles of the late 70's and 80's was done there. You might try calling the Museum there and explaining the problem. They may not know, but they may have contacts who could give you better guess as to how that rifle came to be.
-
brian517th
Follow-up
Rich,
Thanks for the reply. I had not even considered conducting research through Picatinny Arsenal--good lead! I have in fact verified that the rifle is indeed chambered in .308 as it was gauged by a gunsmith and I have fired appx. 40 .308 rounds through it.
I agree that the lack of a heavy barrel and the .308 marking with Sav. is strange vs. the 7.62mm that you would expect to see on a military rifle. However, given the period that this rifle was made, April 1953, the T65/7.62mm cartridge was not even accepted by the U.S. military until the Fall of 1953.
Also, a few years earlier the U.S. military was specifically involved with the creation of the .308 Winchester cartridge. Col. Rene Studier, head of the Small Arms R&D led a project that involved the Springfield Armory and the Winchester Company for the "development of a smaller .30 caliber cartridge that while reducing recoil, would maintain the same ballistics as the venerable .30-06. It sounded like an impossible task but Colonel Studier was convinced it could be done. Improvements in smokeless gunpowders realized earlier in the war coupled with information from German development of the medium caliber "sturmgeweher" cartridge, plus a large helping of engineering skill from Winchester resulted in the .308 cartridge a third smaller and lighter than the .30-06 but with virtually the same ballistics. The new cartridge was designed the T65. Later, it would be adopted by the U.S. Army. and by NATO as the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO."
I am only speculating here but perhaps this particular rifle was chosen to evaluate the .308 cartridge on the Remington 722 action and since Remington did not make this rifle in .308 Win., the .300 Savage barrel was ideally suited to be re-chambered up to .308. Given that the Marine Corps is always playing second fiddle in terms of getting the latest and greatest equipment, they may have decided to test & evaluate the new .308 Win cartridge on their own.
I know from conducting research through Redstone Arsenal in Alabama that there are Management Control Numbers (MCNs are similar to National Stock Numbers in that they establish a unique identifier for non-standard military stock) for Remington 722s in .222, .244, .300, .30 Cal, and .308 calibers. Obviously I keyed right in on the fact that at one time the military found it necessary to establish MCNs for a 722 in both .300 Savage and .308 Winchester---certainly not your standard military cartridge caliber, yet some unit out there had these particular rifles in their possession.
Knowing that there are at least 51 Remington 722 rifles in the small arms registry database today, they were certainly purchased for some type of formal military use. I was able to confirm through Redstone that the small arms database does not include firearms used by Morale, Welfare and Recreation purposes. What I need to find out is why the military used 722s in the first place---I think your lead for Picatinny Arsenal might help answer that question. I also thought contacting Arberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland could also turn up something. I should also go back and refine my FOIA request to have the DoD identify the service branch that owned these 51 rifles and that would help me focus my research some more.
Thanks for your reply as it is much appreciated.
Brian
Thanks for the reply. I had not even considered conducting research through Picatinny Arsenal--good lead! I have in fact verified that the rifle is indeed chambered in .308 as it was gauged by a gunsmith and I have fired appx. 40 .308 rounds through it.
I agree that the lack of a heavy barrel and the .308 marking with Sav. is strange vs. the 7.62mm that you would expect to see on a military rifle. However, given the period that this rifle was made, April 1953, the T65/7.62mm cartridge was not even accepted by the U.S. military until the Fall of 1953.
Also, a few years earlier the U.S. military was specifically involved with the creation of the .308 Winchester cartridge. Col. Rene Studier, head of the Small Arms R&D led a project that involved the Springfield Armory and the Winchester Company for the "development of a smaller .30 caliber cartridge that while reducing recoil, would maintain the same ballistics as the venerable .30-06. It sounded like an impossible task but Colonel Studier was convinced it could be done. Improvements in smokeless gunpowders realized earlier in the war coupled with information from German development of the medium caliber "sturmgeweher" cartridge, plus a large helping of engineering skill from Winchester resulted in the .308 cartridge a third smaller and lighter than the .30-06 but with virtually the same ballistics. The new cartridge was designed the T65. Later, it would be adopted by the U.S. Army. and by NATO as the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO."
I am only speculating here but perhaps this particular rifle was chosen to evaluate the .308 cartridge on the Remington 722 action and since Remington did not make this rifle in .308 Win., the .300 Savage barrel was ideally suited to be re-chambered up to .308. Given that the Marine Corps is always playing second fiddle in terms of getting the latest and greatest equipment, they may have decided to test & evaluate the new .308 Win cartridge on their own.
I know from conducting research through Redstone Arsenal in Alabama that there are Management Control Numbers (MCNs are similar to National Stock Numbers in that they establish a unique identifier for non-standard military stock) for Remington 722s in .222, .244, .300, .30 Cal, and .308 calibers. Obviously I keyed right in on the fact that at one time the military found it necessary to establish MCNs for a 722 in both .300 Savage and .308 Winchester---certainly not your standard military cartridge caliber, yet some unit out there had these particular rifles in their possession.
Knowing that there are at least 51 Remington 722 rifles in the small arms registry database today, they were certainly purchased for some type of formal military use. I was able to confirm through Redstone that the small arms database does not include firearms used by Morale, Welfare and Recreation purposes. What I need to find out is why the military used 722s in the first place---I think your lead for Picatinny Arsenal might help answer that question. I also thought contacting Arberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland could also turn up something. I should also go back and refine my FOIA request to have the DoD identify the service branch that owned these 51 rifles and that would help me focus my research some more.
Thanks for your reply as it is much appreciated.
Brian