I could have got one of the new M40 replicas when they first came out. I really liked it, but thought they were slightly overpriced. I still kinda wish I had though. There were other reasons I passed on it too though.
I like the synthetic stocks better for one, wood warped too easy on the original M40. Of course you could fully glass bed it, but I still like synthetic better. The McMillian HTG is a really nice stock and my personal favorite, I started to use it for my 700 BDL Varmint .308. I had a Remington synthetic stock already though and its a good one. I like it better for carrying around than target type stocks. It is not as nice as the McMillian stocks, but it works.
I have a Redfield Jr. one piece mount, but I used Weaver two piece and their old style slip over rings. I have an late 60s Leupold 2-7 VariX II, and a Redfield 2-7 from the same period, but not the original 3-9 Accurange Redfield. Since I wasn't going for a replica and just a similarly functional rifle, I put on a Burris 3-9 Fullfield II instead. I can shoot out to 500 yards with its Ballistic Plex reticle and I know where to adjust the elevation to set the center cross hairs for dead on at 600 yards if I need to.
My scope is mounted as solid as it would be if it had Redfield one piece mounts. If I needed it to be tougher, it would be easy to put on a one piece mount, Burris Tactical rings, MIL/MIL scope and paint the whole thing camo with Krylon. Anyway, I get consistent 10 shot sub-MOA groups with mine the way it is, which by the way, was the M40 criteria for acceptance by the USMC. So I'm happy, especially since I'm not planning on warring with it any time soon.
In the end, If I had bought the M40 replica when I had the chance, I could only really afford to look at it and keep it like new. Well, I could use it, but it would lose a lot of value, value that I could have put somewhere else.