Hey guys,

I'm looking to reproducing a vietnam era m21 with the art i/art ii system.

I found the leatherwood 3-9x40 scope, and was considering just picking up the modern black tube version because it's close enough and I dont like the color of the repro for the similar price. Plus the new one seems to have windage.


However, I am interested in acquiring the ART II mount, because it does have the classic look, it's period, and it sits a lower on the rifle.

The problem is.. where do I find one, especially just the mount.. and who do I get to mount it? Ebay and gunbroker show nothing.


Thanks guys.

When you find one, if you find multiple, let us know.  I don't think they are that easy to find.  I could be wrong

You mean like this?

Are there any reproductions? I like the simple design and how low it sits. If there are more economical options though I'll consider them!

Not the best repro. Sorry....

http://ironsightinc.com/index.php?route=common/leatherwood

Much better

Not really. Also as a system it isn't really that great. Honestly the 60s era SVD was a better overall system compared to the XM21

Not really. Also as a system it isn't really that great. Honestly the 60s era SVD was a better overall system compared to the XM21.

I didn't see him ask if the system was great or not..........  Every system has it's upsides and downsides.  I doubt his motivation in building a Reproduction Vietnam Era M21 is because he thought it was the best.  The US Military used it in sniping roles in Vietnam.  There is no doubt about that.  So...  sometimes we like to have guns that the US military used in action.  I have no desire to have a russian gun just because someone tells me a it's a better system.....  

+1

I didn't throw a 20+ year old Aimpoint on the rifle in my avatar picture because it was great.  Clearly there are more advanced and modern Aimpoints available today. I did it because that is what was used on that particular rifle on a particular day.

Yeah, I'm just doing it for the look, and I did want to scope the rifle, so why not? I'm not going with the ART system as it wouldnt work on my scout anyone, but I am doing something that will look era for the most part.

Well, guess I ruffled some feathers, I collect and shoot historic snipers and clones therof so I get it, but a large part of my interest is also how well those rifles actually performed compared to each other and to modern day systems.

Anyhow, I do have an accurate M21 clone complete with ART2, and a PVS2, only thing missing is a correct suppressor, but those weren't issued much; I just can't happen to find any pics of it at the moment or I'd throw em up. Also, if you want strictly VN era, you are looking for an ART1, the ART2's were post VN. The plus side with the ART1 is that it works better IMO than the ART2 with less shit to go wrong, however the ART2 mount is better from the standpoint of actually shooting it. I'll try to get some pics up at some point if you are actually interested.

I always liked the use of oddball scopes in pics I see......  Also, I'm sorry if I came across as irritated.  But it's sort of on the heels of a lot of sentiment banging around lately that the m14 was junk.  Personally, I don't have a problem with people pointing out a systems weakness and to be sure there are probably better choices out there.  But so many times if that's the case, the upsides to a certain platform get overlooked and then people sort of act like the M14 was just exploding in peoples faces and is so loose after 10 rounds that it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  OK, that was probably an exaggeration, but it kind of gets that way sometimes.  

Either way, I've liked owning an M1A and have had some fun shooting it.  Actually I owned a Poly for a bit too, BIL has it now and that one shot pretty well too.  It was used by some key people in the US Military history and I personally think is a good weapon.  There are people that btdt that seemed to like it.  It is not a perfect weapon.  But what is?  


Probably a weaver of some flavor?  

Having extensive experience with most of the battle rifle variants out there, including the M14 I can confidently say it certainly won't fall apart and I certainly wouldn't call it junk. However one of the recurring problems for the original XM21 sniper variants in the field was maintaining accuracy due to the bedding requirements and the inherent problems with the ART scopes. Honestly out of the 60's era sniper systems the XM21 one of the better semi-auto systems fielded. Did it have issues? Sure it did, but that knowledge was used to develop the next generation M25 system, which was actually pretty good. And compared to other 60's and 70's era systems the XM21/M21 was pretty comparable.  Most people look at a 40 year old rifle and immediately dismiss it, but a XM21 in good shape isn't really that inferior to more modern systems. Then again several WW2 era systems are probably comparable to the XM21, the devil is always in the details.

I think a lot of the disdain comes when comparing to newer platforms.  But I still think the anti sentiment is a bit over reaching then what reality is.   Either way I don't really care if it's the best system out there or not.  It has a lot of history and goes bang and puts holes in things.  

I realize I'll probably get a alot of hate mail over it but, realistically most 60's and 70's era "systems" shot in the 1-2 moa range and had an effective range of about 600 yds. It wasn't till the 80's and 90's that 1 moa or less was a realistic goal for most sniper systems and 1000yd shooting with 308's started to be a realistic proposition.

Even the M40's?


I thought I remember a quote of Hathcock say8ing there were other guns that grouped better than that winchester, but he choose it because it was always dead nuts on with the first shot.  I think I remember him quoting specifically that him and only a few others used 600 yard zero.

Well Hathcock preferred the 30.06 Winchester M70, not the 308 Remington M40, and as with anything you will have exceptions to the rule.

Realistically on the whole bolt guns are accurate than the semi autos regardless of the era. One thing that modern shooters generally fail to consider is that there have been huge advancements in ammunition accuracy since the 60's.  So its fairly useless to compare vintage snipers with modern match ammo or worse yet hand-loads. I have a "repro" M40 that is very accurate .5-.75 MOA with hand loads. However, 60's era M118 match didn't use modern 175 SMK bullets, temperature insensitive powders etc. so that doesn't really give me an accurate idea of what a VN era sniper would be shooting. From reports I have read the original M40 was typically a 1 moa (ish) gun when it was issued with the 60's era m118 which is comparable to other 70's era bolt action sniper systems from other countries.

With regards to the zero, doctrinally speaking the marines at the time used a 500 meter zero with the M40, and held over for 600 meters and held under for ranges shorter than that, the TM has a nifty chart for holds on a standing and kneeling target. Then again, the average sniper engagement range in Vietnam IIRC was something like 300 or 400yds on average (yes yes there were many "long range" shots too, but they were the exception not the rule) and I'm sure some of the better shooters did zero at 600 meters or even longer as the situation dictated. Basically take anything that Hathcock said and put it in the context of he was the best marine sniper in VN, not some average Joe sniper.

The main deficiencies of the original M40's were issues with bedding like the M21, durability issues with the redfield accurange scopes and the fact the scopes couldn't really be repeatedly adjusted for elevation or windage in the field. Again, all of those issues were rectified in the M40a1 which IMO was the first "modern" US sniper rifle.

Then there are the whole host of training issues with US snipers in Vietnam but thats getting off topic.

The M21 was the right gun (available) for the mission at the time.  600 yards covered quite a bit of territory in Vietnam - Laos - Cambodia from coastal marshland to highlands considering the jungle foliage.

Fiberglass stocks had not been designed yet, bedding was iffy if not done right, and match quality ammunition for auto loaders was just OK.  The ART I was a fair scope while its mounting system was fragile and sensitive.

Even into the 80s and 90s the mounting system was a patchwork of workarounds trying to secure a relatively heavy scope with the physics of a cantilevered moment arm secured to the scope boss with a screw and (in the ART II) a screw in the stripper guide.

Minute-and-a-half was pretty good considering you could win Camp Perry with an iron-sighted National Match M14 at 600 yards.  An E-type silhouette could be challenging if you were the third, fourth, or fifth Soldier to inherit that particular M21 given combat optempo, Vietnam's tropical climate, and a rifle that was cleaned from the muzzle with sectioned GI cleaning rods..

The ART I mount was fairly fragile (being aluminum).  Our practice was to confirm zero every other day if possible at 300 Meters on a steel E-type.

I think we are largely on the same page. My Comments in Red

Also, as a side note, realistically most sniper engagements throughout history have not been regular 1000m shots, more like 200-600m depending on the country and the war. And under those circumstances autoloaders are quite adequate and give you the advantage of rapid follow up shots.