Keeping your weapons clean - in THIS???

[Preacherman]

I was sent the attached pictures by a friend who's son is in Iraq at the moment. These are photographs of a sandstorm that hit their camp at Al Asad airbase yesterday, April 26, 2005.

I had to think, looking at these - how much fun must it be to have to keep your weapons clean and operating in these conditions??? :what:

[Preacherman]

One more - this is what it's like inside the storm! :what:

[P95Carry]

Absolutely awesome pics Peter - and actually I'd guess hard to really imagine without being in one of these ''granular hells''.

I am told the particles get everywhere and so yeah - weapons maintainance must be a major problem.

[PUMC_TomG]

A Marine acquaintance of mine sent me pictures of the same sandstorm the other day...

Did you get any of the red tint the landscape took near the end of the storm? VERY cool.

[psyopspec]

I used the toothbrush to dust off my weapon everyday for six months while I was in country - NO EXCEPTION. Also, oil was used very rarely and very, very sparingly to keep dirt from attracting to the BCG of my M-16. Maybe 2-3 drops per month while I was there. The general idea was that dry and clean beats clean and oily (which shortly=dirty).

[Jeff White]

USGI clear plastic trash bag and some 100 mph tape is the solution. The Army actually issues a purpose built bag that is perforated to tear open easily but they can be hard to come by.

It's the only way in sandstorms.

Jeff

[c_yeager]

We are purchasing (at extraordinary cost) Chinese AK47 rifles for the Iraqi military as we speak...

[griz]

Wow, it looks like it would be a problem breathing in that storm, much less keeping dust out of equipment. I've heard of some of the dificulties keeping aircraft serviced in that sort of enviorment, but have never seen pictures like that.

[mete]

Just saw that on the news .That dust storm is as high as 5000 feet !!!! Remember that sand + oil = lapping compound so keep your weapons clean but no oil.

[El Tejon]

No, wait, I know how to handle sandstorms. According to "Hildago", you ride your horse into some ruins and wait for it to pass. :D

[walking arsenal]

looks like a good place for the ak-47

[Khaotic]

Note on this.

The army generally issues/uses an oil based cleaner/lube... which, of course, attracts sand like nobody's business.

I do not remember the exact name, but I do remember it being oil-based and more trouble than it's worth around sand of any kind (and believe me I know, I did basic at jackson) - which compounds that problem immensely.

In a pinch, we'd just tape a condom over the barrel and slap a piece of tape over the dust cover.

There are some effective graphite based lubes, but most unit commands have banned their use because it makes the supplier of the oil-based stuff look real bad... families and friends are still shipping the graphite stuff to invidual troops who use it on the sly, and CO's pretend not to notice.

It's a nice thing to include in any 'care packages' you send our boys - might save their butt too, so it's a worthwhile investment for me.

-K

[LaEscopeta]

We are purchasing (at extraordinary cost) Chinese AK47 rifles for the Iraqi military as we speak...
You mean we ran out of the 6 zillion or so we had stockpiled? (captured in Vietnam, Granada, etc) Also, what about all the ones Sadam stockpiled? Did the insurgents get all of them before we could secure them?

Sorry to take this OT. To get back on topic, great pictures, thanks for posting. Reminds me of the sandstorm descriptions from the Dune books.

Also, with AKs being famous for requiring low maintenance, would they have a better chance of working after a sandstorm then a M16/M4?

[Jeff White]

I do not remember the exact name, but I do remember it being oil-based and more trouble than it's worth around sand of any kind (and believe me I know, I did basic at jackson) - which compounds that problem immensely.

CLP....if you maintain your weapon according to the instructions in the -10 you won't have any problems using it. Even in a sandy environment. The simple trick of keeping the dust cover closed works wonders.

In a pinch, we'd just tape a condom over the barrel and slap a piece of tape over the dust cover.

Why tape over the dust cover? The purpose of the dust cover is to keep the dust and dirt out of the action. If you tape it shut, you're begging for a malfunction. Why buy a condom when you can go to supply and get a shoot off plastic cap to fit over the flash suppressor for nothing?

There are some effective graphite based lubes, but most unit commands have banned their use because it makes the supplier of the oil-based stuff look real bad.

Graphite based lubes are not approved because graphite and aluminum don't mix. Graphite is very corrosive to aluminum. There are a lot of aluminum components in our weapons. It's got nothing to do with making anyone look bad. Units that maintain their weapons according to the manuals are not having any problems using CLP in the desert. Units with a chain of command that doesn't insist that the NCOs do their job and let soldiers neglect basic maintenance are the ones that are having problems. They are having problems with any lube.

families and friends are still shipping the graphite stuff to invidual troops who use it on the sly, and CO's pretend not to notice.

CO's normally have more to do then to have time to indvidually inspect weapons. The NCOs should be taking care of that for the CO. Unfrotunately there are some NCOs who won't trust what's in the manuals and continue to pass on old wives tales about weapons maintenance that date back to 1967.

It's a nice thing to include in any 'care packages' you send our boys - might save their butt too, so it's a worthwhile investment for me.

Unapproved lubricants aren't going to save anyones butt. Caring for his weapon per the -10, keeping it covered (the entire weapon) in sandstorms and the like is what will keep it functioning and save his/her butt.

Jeff

[Warbow]

Whoa!

Neat photos.

[heypete]

You should see what happens with M1A1 tanks in the desert. You gotta blast those vee-pack air filters out near-constantly. The tanks with the auto-reverse-blower-thingies that will automatically blast out the vee-packs when necessary are very handy.

The turbines on the tanks suck as much air as helicopter engines (very similar engine to the Blackhawk), but they can't fly above all the dust particles.

The fact that the air filters are rated by pounds (i.e. when the filter weighs 40 pounds, you need to replace it) rather than airflow is somewhat scary. :eek:

[Khaotic]

CLP....if you maintain your weapon according to the instructions in the -10 you won't have any problems using it. Even in a sandy environment. The simple trick of keeping the dust cover closed works wonders.

You know, all the "but if you follow instructions, it'll work" never seemed to prevent us from swearing and cussing on a failed SPORT as we pulled the magazine and either..
A - Locked the bolt to the rear and pounded the butt into the back of the foxhole, handy tree, etc
B - Sighed and once again pestered the squad leader for the cleaning kit so we could assemble the rod and knock the stuck casing out.

That being said, more than half the dust covers on our rifles never worked.

Why tape over the dust cover? The purpose of the dust cover is to keep the dust and dirt out of the action. If you tape it shut, you're begging for a malfunction.

See above, they wouldn't STAY shut, and thus the bolt would pick up a horrific amount of grit, dirt, what have you.
We left a corner folded back so we could just yank the tank off when it was go-time.

Why buy a condom when you can go to supply and get a shoot off plastic cap to fit over the flash suppressor for nothing?

This assumes your unit has a decent supply line, and said supply line can aquire them - and that is if you are not out in the field at the time.
Nice that someone came up with them, but we never had em, never even heard of em.

Graphite based lubes are not approved because graphite and aluminum don't mix. Graphite is very corrosive to aluminum. There are a lot of aluminum components in our weapons. It's got nothing to do with making anyone look bad.

Imma hand over benefit of the doubt on this one, but having dealt with "they jam because you're not cleaning them well enough!" over and over, watching surgically clean M16A1's simply refuse to fire (or more commonly, refuse to fire more than once!), it's always been a matter of policy to blame the troops for not keeping them clean enough.

Units that maintain their weapons according to the manuals are not having any problems using CLP in the desert.

I beg to differ on that one, we played merry hell getting them to work *in training* in a controlled environment, with by-the-book maintainence taken to a psychotic level and reinforced by DI's who cut no slack at all on weapons care - yet we still had an appalling amount of jammed weapons.

The NCOs should be taking care of that for the CO. Unfrotunately there are some NCOs who won't trust what's in the manuals and continue to pass on old wives tales about weapons maintenance that date back to 1967.

They made it to be NCO's, and almost without exception, the NCO's in question are those who've taken fire and given it back, ergo.. I'd give their opinion a little credence.

Unapproved lubricants aren't going to save anyones butt. Caring for his weapon per the -10, keeping it covered (the entire weapon) in sandstorms and the like is what will keep it functioning and save his/her butt.

Yeah, just like it saved the 507th Maintainence ?
I might note, in my experience with supply and logistics folk, they're pretty meticulous about cleaning the weapon, not only because it's required, but also in that when time comes around to hand out detail, it's a handy dodge to be cleaning your weapon, trust me, they clean their weapons a LOT. :rolleyes:

However, having used the M16 for an extended period of time, I can assure you that by-the-book cleaning may work fine on a nice clean test range, but when you're out in the back acres - not matter HOW you try and try to clean and lube it, the stuff they issue picks up dirt and grit like an electromagnet draws iron filings, you'd need divine intervention to keep one clean enough to fire all four mags without jamming up, repeatedly.

What does it really say about a 'combat' weapon you have to carry to the field in an airtight plastic bag to protect it ?
Having looked up graphite's reaction to aluminum, I take your point - but that sounds like a lose-lose situation, either way the troop holding the rifle is a bit shafted.

People can say "myth" all they want, but out on the firing line, right AFTER surgically cleaning the weapons, AFTER the DI inspected them and pronounced them 'clean' - and we have a bunch of cussing guys with their hand up for the range Sgt's cleaning rod, every single time - the concept of 'myth' falls short.

My solution to it was to sign out the units spare M60, a battered relic that had one advantage over most of the units weapons - it would reliably go bang when you pulled the trigger.
It had it's issues too, but at least I never had to fear i'd be stuck holding a club instead of a firearm at a critical moment.

Never got my hands on the M249, so as for that I couldn't tell you, but if I had to face the situation our boys are in with a by-the-book maintained M16... I'd be scared witless, especially since for all the 'improvements', we're still hearing the same basic problems - the same problems, and the same "it's not the weapon's fault" mantra.

-K

[Dionysusigma]

Um... is it just me, or is keeping a gun lubed in a dry, hot environment such as Iraq kinda like keeping a canoe with you in case it floods? :uhoh: :confused:

[Warbow]

Yeah, just like it saved the 507th Maintainence ?
I might note, in my experience with supply and logistics folk, they're pretty meticulous about cleaning the weapon, not only because it's required, but also in that when time comes around to hand out detail, it's a handy dodge to be cleaning your weapon, trust me, they clean their weapons a LOT.

People like to concentrate on how the 507th's M16s malfunctioned. What some people don't know or don't mention is that the 507th's M2 and M249(s) also malfunctioned. Constantly on the move for over two days through sand deserts with very little time for equipment maintenance isn't friendly to any weapon.

[Jeff White]

You know, all the "but if you follow instructions, it'll work" never seemed to prevent us from swearing and cussing on a failed SPORT as we pulled the magazine and either..
A - Locked the bolt to the rear and pounded the butt into the back of the foxhole, handy tree, etc

If the bolt locked to the rear, why in the world were you pounding the buttstock into something? I've had to pound the buttstock on the ground while pulling back on the charging handle to clear a malfunction, but I can't see that it would serve any purpose if the bolt carrier group moved freely.

B - Sighed and once again pestered the squad leader for the cleaning kit so we could assemble the rod and knock the stuck casing out.

Pestered the squad leader for the cleaning kit?? :what: You did say you were at Ft Jackson, right? That's Ft Jackson SC in the good old USA?? What kind of unit were you in there and when?

That being said, more than half the dust covers on our rifles never worked.

I'm assuming that your only experience was with weapons out of the weapons pool in BCT or maybe ROTC camp. Those weapons were not serviceable and shouldn't have been issued. There would be heads rolling in any unit that allowed their weapons to get into that kind of shape.

This assumes your unit has a decent supply line, and said supply line can aquire them - and that is if you are not out in the field at the time.
Nice that someone came up with them, but we never had em, never even heard of em.

In 29 years I never had trouble aquiring those items even when in FAD IV units that were literally at the bottom of the food chain. Never had any problems while in the field either. Even while deployed.

Imma hand over benefit of the doubt on this one, but having dealt with "they jam because you're not cleaning them well enough!" over and over, watching surgically clean M16A1's simply refuse to fire (or more commonly, refuse to fire more than once!), it's always been a matter of policy to blame the troops for not keeping them clean enough.

I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 1974 and turned in my last M16A2 in October of 2003. I used them in Infantry and Artillery units in every duty position from rifleman to First Sergeant and in every environment from the arctic to the desert. If your rifle was surgically clean (whatever that means) and refused to fire, there was something wrong with it. They don't have to be clean at all to function.

I beg to differ on that one, we played merry hell getting them to work *in training* in a controlled environment, with by-the-book maintainence taken to a psychotic level and reinforced by DI's who cut no slack at all on weapons care - yet we still had an appalling amount of jammed weapons.

Then there were mechanical problems with the weapons you were issued. As I said earlier, the broken dust covers alone would have been a no go.

They made it to be NCO's, and almost without exception, the NCO's in question are those who've taken fire and given it back, ergo.. I'd give their opinion a little credence.


You would be appalled at the lack of basic knowledge about these things in the Army. These same myths have been repeated since the M16 was adopted. Some of the more interesting ones I've heard over the years was to use automatic transmission fluid instead of LSA to lube your weapon in the jungle, that bug juice (GI insect repellent) was a good lubricant, that you needed to lube the bullets in your magazine to keep them from sticking in the chamber, that the bullets would swell in the chamber over night and that you always needed to chamber a fresh round every morning. I heard many of these from soldiers with patches on their right shoulder and CIBs over their left pocket. But you know what, that didn't make them any truer then, and they certainly aren't true now.

Yeah, just like it saved the 507th Maintainence ?
I might note, in my experience with supply and logistics folk, they're pretty meticulous about cleaning the weapon, not only because it's required, but also in that when time comes around to hand out detail, it's a handy dodge to be cleaning your weapon, trust me, they clean their weapons a LOT.

The 507th Maintenance Company was a victim of it's own poor leadership. The failure of their weapons was due to the fact that they didn't take proper care of them. If you read the AARs you'll find that all of their weapons failed. Not just the M16 series.

I have to disagree with you about CSS units caring for their weapons. Heck it was a pain to keep the Bn Support Platoon up on their weapons and that was in a light Infantry Battalion. CSS units have other jobs that are much more important (in their minds) then maintaining their individual weapons. I wasn't here but I would be willing to bet that most of their weapons weren't cared for at all. They were concerned with keeping the Patriot Missile Batterys they supported FMC. I would bet that rifles were stashed under the truck seats etc.

However, having used the M16 for an extended period of time, I can assure you that by-the-book cleaning may work fine on a nice clean test range, but when you're out in the back acres - not matter HOW you try and try to clean and lube it, the stuff they issue picks up dirt and grit like an electromagnet draws iron filings, you'd need divine intervention to keep one clean enough to fire all four mags without jamming up, repeatedly.

Funny, but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. Why don't you define extended length of time for me. I've been in the field and deployed for months at a time before. The stuff they issue doesn't pick up dust and dirt if you use it according to the directions in the -10, See the section on Operation under unusual conditions for desert instructions. you can also find the special issue from the MSG HalfMast and good folks at PS Magazine for more info.

What does it really say about a 'combat' weapon you have to carry to the field in an airtight plastic bag to protect it ?

We wrapped our M1s up in the desert during WWII. The canvas shops also made covers for both the Browning 1919 and Browning M2 machine guns. In those conditions you have to keep the sand out of any weapon if you expect it to function.

My solution to it was to sign out the units spare M60, a battered relic that had one advantage over most of the units weapons - it would reliably go bang when you pulled the trigger.
It had it's issues too, but at least I never had to fear i'd be stuck holding a club instead of a firearm at a critical moment.

And what critical moments did you experience at Ft Jackson? You certainly aren't implying that you were deployed to combat with unserviceable rifles?

No one goes overseas, even on a deployment for training unless their weapons meet all the serviceabiliity criteria in the TM. This is required by Army regulations.

Never got my hands on the M249, so as for that I couldn't tell you, but if I had to face the situation our boys are in with a by-the-book maintained M16... I'd be scared witless, especially since for all the 'improvements', we're still hearing the same basic problems - the same problems, and the same "it's not the weapon's fault" mantra.

Well if you hit the search button, you'll find all kinds of threads on this very subject. In those threads you'll find links to some of the official after action reports conducted by people like the Directorate of Combat Developments, US Army Infantry School, The armor School etc. You won't find any complaints about how our small arms are working if properly maintained, except for the bad after market magazines with the M9 pistol.

You can't actually believe that if there were systematic problems with the M16, we wouldn't be hearing of them.

Jeff

[RevDisk]

Why tape over the dust cover? The purpose of the dust cover is to keep the dust and dirt out of the action. If you tape it shut, you're begging for a malfunction. Why buy a condom when you can go to supply and get a shoot off plastic cap to fit over the flash suppressor for nothing?

The spring for the dust cover wear down quickly during prolonged use. If one can find replacement springs, it's relatively simple procedure to replace them. This is not standard rifle maintaince, and only armorers are supposed to do so. Plus, good luck trying to get said springs though normal Army supply system. They won't give 'em to grunts.

Condom is multi-purpose. It can carry water, keep stuff out of rifle, keep your smokes dry, and prevent pregnancy if properly used. Those plastic caps only keep stuff out of your rifle. Also, it is a very unwise idea to shoot through those plastic black caps. Hazardous to one's health also. Again, assuming you can even get them from supply.



CLP....if you maintain your weapon according to the instructions in the -10 you won't have any problems using it. Even in a sandy environment. The simple trick of keeping the dust cover closed works wonders.

The dash ten manual specifically states what is user level maintaince and what is armorer level maintaince. Except for cleaning the rifle, most things are armorer level maintaince. Some things that are listed as user level, command states must be done at armorer level. (Changing common springs, etc)

Dust cover keeps a lot of stuff out of your rifle, but it's not a magic solution that makes the weapon immune to the problem of dust, dirt, etc. Considering the weapon directly vents carbon into the receiver, yanno.

CLP + sand = bad. Real bad. I don't care if the manual states so or not. Personal experience has shown me this.



Graphite based lubes are not approved because graphite and aluminum don't mix. Graphite is very corrosive to aluminum. There are a lot of aluminum components in our weapons. It's got nothing to do with making anyone look bad. Units that maintain their weapons according to the manuals are not having any problems using CLP in the desert. Units with a chain of command that doesn't insist that the NCOs do their job and let soldiers neglect basic maintenance are the ones that are having problems. They are having problems with any lube.

Graphite lube wears down an upper quicker, yes. But it also keeps it shooting. Granted, I've worn out a good number of upper's with "routine usage". (ie, shooting them out, bashing them around, etc) I wouldn't use graphite lube on a weapon I was keeping for financial investment or historical purposes. I would use graphite lube on a combat weapon I intend to abuse anyways.

Units that maintain their weapons ARE having problems with CLP in sandy environments. CLP is flat out not cutting it in areas with lots and lots of sand. Graphite tends to work, and not render the weapon unsafe and/or unusable. Wearing it down faster? Well, they don't pay me to baby weapons, they pay me to fire weapons and keep it firing.

I figure an upper receiver costs the Army maybe $400. My training, equipment, food, shelter, gas, etc? Uhm, near half a million all and all. No CO, NCO or armorer has yet had a problem with my treatment of my weapons. Except for this one officer who took exception with my mounting a bayonet on a crew served... nevermind.



CO's normally have more to do then to have time to indvidually inspect weapons. The NCOs should be taking care of that for the CO. Unfrotunately there are some NCOs who won't trust what's in the manuals and continue to pass on old wives tales about weapons maintenance that date back to 1967.

I have not had any officer or NCO criticize my weapons cleaning abilities. On the contrary, I have been bribed to clean weapons FOR my officers and NCO's. Three or four packs of Marlboros for an M16, one or two for an M9. Carton for any crew served. I always demand said officer or NCO inspect the weapon and function test it before I accept payment.

A good number have been combat vets included. Except for a few minor exceptions, I've never heard a thing wrong with my methods. (One old sarge claimed I needed to pay more attention to the cloverleaf around the gas tube and also get into the forward assist a bit more.)



Unapproved lubricants aren't going to save anyones butt. Caring for his weapon per the -10, keeping it covered (the entire weapon) in sandstorms and the like is what will keep it functioning and save his/her butt.

Saved mine. I'm satisfied with the results thus far. (I'm still breathing.)

Keeping the entire weapon in an airtight plastic baggie is not always possible. It's a sad comment that a weapon NEEDS to be kept in an airtight plastic baggie in order to function. I've fired almost all the common service rifles currently in use around the world. (Have photos too.) Most weapons can be made perfectly servicable after a sandstorm by dumping a canteen into the receiver and shaking it slightly. In a pinch, other liquids can be used, but are not sanitory alternatives.



Also, with AKs being famous for requiring low maintenance, would they have a better chance of working after a sandstorm then a M16/M4?

Yes. We did a test. We took off the receiver plate, poured as much sand into the weapon as possible, replaced the cover plate, poured in more sand by holding the rifle upside down until the weapon was as full as possible.

To clear it, we shook the rifle vigorously for a few seconds, poured a canteen of water into the rifle, and then locked a mag. Worked fine. This was a rifle randomly selected from a pile of confiscated, heavily used and abused AKM's. Not very scientific, I admit, but it convinced me.

Note, if you ever try the above, wear goggles. The AK spat dust EVERYWHERE on the first couple of rounds. Self-cleaning, if you will. :D



Never got my hands on the M249, so as for that I couldn't tell you, but if I had to face the situation our boys are in with a by-the-book maintained M16... I'd be scared witless, especially since for all the 'improvements', we're still hearing the same basic problems - the same problems, and the same "it's not the weapon's fault" mantra.

Belt fed, never had problems with an M249 SAW. Not fun to clean, I once had to use a small chisel to take off the carbon after prolonged use. Still functioned. You can also feed the SAW by magazine. Uhm, don't do this. Lots of feed problems. I figured it was the mags, not the weapon.

If a brand new M16/M4 is kept surgically clean with new magazines, it will function properly. I own a number of non-standard cleaning tools that help. I make a special tool for the star chamber out of a coat hanger, because it's virtually impossible to properly clean the chamber by hand. (Cut a six inch length, bend one end so it looks like a candy cane, smash the other end flat with a hammer, file down to make nice and smooth.) I own a number of dental tools that I use for cleaning. LOTS AND LOTS of cleaning patches.

Be aware, "overcleaning" a weapon can be hazardous to the weapon as undercleaning. Improper cleaning procedures to make the weapon "spotless" have messed up a good number of rifles.

I have often repeated to my commanders that if my [bleep]ing M16 jams up, I intend to beat the enemy to death with the rifle, and then steal his AK47. No commander with even half a brain has taken an issue with my views. Some of them have seen how accurate I am with the AK platform on FA. (Five six-round bursts per mag.)



I might note, in my experience with supply and logistics folk, they're pretty meticulous about cleaning the weapon, not only because it's required, but also in that when time comes around to hand out detail, it's a handy dodge to be cleaning your weapon, trust me, they clean their weapons a LOT.

Shhh! You're giving away a secret! Officers might be reading this!

[blackrazor]

Graphite is very corrosive to aluminum

Do you have a reference for this? If true, I wouldn't be worried about graphite lubricants, I'd be worried that my rifle is bathed in carbon (aka graphite) dust every time I pull the trigger. I haven't noticed any aluminum corrosion in my AR's... :scrutiny:

[Jeff White]

http://corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov/html/galcorr.htm

Graphite is a great conductor. It helps with galvanic corrosion between two dissimilar metals like aluminum and steel. That's the reason that barrel nuts and receiver extension tubes are assembled with a moly grease as an anti-seize agent.

The carbon that is in the system after firing isn't exactly the same as graphite. If it was the system would be self cleaning and self lubing and we know that that's not the case.

For the entire life of the system the only authorized cleaners and lubes have been RBC, LSA, CLP and LAW. It doesn't matter what you use at home, or what some guy at the VFW told you they did with their M16s in Nam. If you maintain your weapons by the instructions in the TM, and any special bulletins put out by LOGSA, they will work.

I have a personal sore spot with people who think they know more about this then people who write the manuals and put out the messages.

If you want to scrub out your lower receiver with carborator cleaner, use oven cleaner to clean the chamber, spray it with WD 40 or lube it with dry-slide, TW25, militech, or GI insect repellent (I have seen soldiers use all of these things) you're violating regs and not helping your weapon run any better.

The best thing you can do is clean and lube it per the TM and any special instructions issued for the climate you're in, and keep the dust out of it.

Once again, the unique American trait that every male left the womb an expert in small arms use and combat rears it's head.... :banghead:

Jeff

[blackrazor]

So what you are saying is that the graphite is only a problem because its electrical conductivity facilitates the cathodic corrosion of Al. However, cathodic corrosion is not really going to be a problem, unless your rifle is constantly exposed to an environment that would corrode the steel parts. Therefore, a clean,dry rifle should be able to use graphite lubricant all day without any issues.

Actually, if your rifle is in a corrosive environment, it might still be a good idea to use a graphite lubricant, since the resulting cathodic corrosion will sacrifice the Al in the receiver to preserve the steel in the bolt, bolt carrier, firing pin and barrel. I would imagine that keeping the bolt and barrel corrosion free would be more important than any corrosion on the receiver.

BTW,the graphite in your receiver IS the same as the graphite you buy for lube, it's just the other impurities that come along with it which cut down on the lubrication. The point is, if you're worried about graphite enabling some kind of cathodic reaction between the steel and aluminum in your rifle, you should be worried about the soot in your receiver. Pure carbon only comes in 3 forms, graphite, diamond and fullerenes... and I'm pretty sure your rifle is only producing one of them.

[Khaotic]

If you maintain your weapons by the instructions in the TM, and any special bulletins put out by LOGSA, they will work.

Work, maybe - work reliably ? never.
No force on earth is gonna make that crap it kicks back into the chamber magically dissappear during protracted use, or did someone think the bad guys would stand by and wait while you cleaned it every 60 rounds ?

I have a personal sore spot with people who think they know more about this then people who write the manuals and put out the messages.

Tell it to the families of the legion of dead guys found holding a jammed rifle.
Go look up and read - The saga of the M-16 in Vietnam, by Dick Culver

The "people who write the manuals and put out the messages" were directly responsible for many casualties incurred by the problems they refused to admit existed, due to political concerns at the time - and for the most part still refuse to admit.

Chroming the bore helped, as did many of the other 'band-aid' fixes, but the experience of myself, and every single troop I served with is that the M16 is an untrustworthy piece of junk no matter how clean you keep it.
The guy test firing the M16 in a nice, safe, controlled, clean lab somewhere has a far different experience than the grunt laying in the mud trying to fire it, I assure you.

As far as the junk-quality rifles our unit was stuck with ? and how the rest of the 507th's stuff didn't work either ?
What is it with folks thinkin you can just shoot off a req to supply and get all that stuff ?
Or that the command is gonna bother to address the problem ?

Second line units, whenever they make noise about crap quality gear, worn out vehicles, junk grade weapons, get one and only one answer from command - "suck it up, soldier!", and that's the end of it.
For cryin out loud, we sent FIRST line units out into the sandbox without proper NV gear, body armor, vehicle armor, and left them hanging in the breeze begging what they could from their families.

So tell me, how many high command heads rolled for that one ? hmmm ?

Now, in that light, what do you THINK they told the second and third line folks when they pointed out that sayy... for example "This .50cal's mount is rust frozen, I can't get it to turn more than 10 degrees!"
They got told to suck it up and deal with it, just like the grunts in the thick of it without the right gear to do their job.

The only heads that roll is the poor sodders on the bottom of the chain of command, who of course take the blame for "not cleaning it properly" in spite of the fact that all the cleaning in the world isn't gonna make any difference once you get to the third magazine.

Who claimed expertise ? seems like you did, mister.
I flat stated my experiences with that piece of junk, I cleaned it by-the-book, and it did not work, none of them I was ever issued worked reliably, nor did those of my of my fellow troops and one day, I simply had my fill and got the unit armorer to hand me an M60 that was so beat up he hesitated to issue it - yet that weapon served me well for the rest of my service with that unit.

And just to make things clear ?
Yes, we did live fire those junk-grade weapons, and every one of our meager few range days I cringed, jamming.. that's dealable on a training range, but a pop and no kick followed by a second trigger pull ?.. :eek:
Thankfully we were never THAT unlucky - but yes, those "no-go" weapons were our issue weapons, and were live fired, in spite of various defects and wear, and in spite of the fact that several of us complained to command about it.

-K

[RevDisk]

I have a personal sore spot with people who think they know more about this then people who write the manuals and put out the messages.

Once again, the unique American trait that every male left the womb an expert in small arms use and combat rears it's head....

I don't claim to be an Ordinance expert. But I do consider myself an expert at some things within my branch, the Signal Corps. I've gone through many manuals, and noted plenty of inaccurate statements. In the back of every TM is a form for submitting corrections. I've used it many times.

I also have gotten drunk with some of the folks that DO write the manuals for Signal equipment. Some are experts, some aren't. I asked them where they got their information. Very often they say they get figures from the manufacturer, and pretty much write the TM based off limited testing and the manufacturer's documentation. Uhm, what if the manufacturer's documentation is wrong? That's what the form on the back of the TM is for, I'm told. Not sure how the process goes for the Ordinance Corps, but I suspect it is similiar.

Slightly before my time, but there was an issue with SINCGAR batteries exploding and/or catching on fire. They're lithium batteries. Lithium and water don't mix well in these batteries. Seals were faulty. Wasn't listed in the TM, nor was there any corrective actions published. Until the manufacturer fixed the problem, our "corrective action" was welding plates onto the SINCGARS manpack frames. Lithium fire will eventually eat through the steel plate, but it gives you precious seconds to get the radio off your back. Wasn't in any TM or tech memo until well after the situation was solved.

The TM's are not always perfect. The people that write the TM's are not always the best people in their field.



The best thing you can do is clean and lube it per the TM and any special instructions issued for the climate you're in, and keep the dust out of it.


http://jdumong.net/delta/m-16Part1.htm

http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm


Culver got the M16 in 1967. My immediate superior went through Basic in 1971. Khaotic went through Basic in 1986. I went through Basic in 2000.

We all agree on the same problems. I saw a lot of the problems in 2000 that were noted in 1967 and 1971. All of us were told that we're not properly cleaning the rifle. Uhm... :scrutiny:



Yet they keep trying to improve the M16 to fix the problems that supposedly don't exist. Adding the forward assist. Chrome plating the chamber, chrome plating the bore. Making the buffer group heavier. etc, etc. Yea, the rifle has gotten better in some aspects. (I'm not a fan of the M4. Lower velocity, shorter effective distance.) After nearly 50 years of development, I should hope so. But it still has reliability issues.

I've seen plenty of foreign weapons that do not have the same issues. When it comes to reliability, only one weapon I fired was worse than the M16. That's the SA-80 / L85A1 , which is a COMPLETE waste of metal. I broke one just by handling it roughly. The Brits assured me it happened all the time, and offered to let me shoot another one. I declined, very quickly. The M16 family is very accurate. No one denies that. It's reliability problem is what irks me. Yea, it's a lot better than the original versions back in the late 60's.

Still, I'd give anything for a stock M16A2 that was as reliable as say an H&K G36 or Sako Rk-95...

[NMshooter]

Round and round we go again...

[walking arsenal]

ak-47 rules for reliability :D

[Sergeant Sabre]

Never had a problem with any of the three M-16s I was issued in the Marines. Not even Colt's ser # 6156723, with which I deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. I never saw one that did have problems.
I can't believe that any command would let wasted gear get deployed. If so, then that's a command environment problem, not a rifle problem
The spring for the little ball-bearing-looking thing that keeps the ejection port cover closed never wore out on me even with protracted use. I dunno how anybody can say that this thing wore out. Not even with the (seemingly) endless repetitions of inspection arms during drill in boot camp (in which the ejection port cover is open and closed during the movment) did any of my platoons experience an ejection port cover spring failure :confused:.
What? Supply, maintenence, etc. people cleaning weapons a lot? Ya, riiiight. The last thing on anybody's mind when you're sitting around at 3pm with all your work for that day done is "Hey!! Let's go clean weapons!!!". 'Fraid not. Grunts, supply, radio, computer techicians, intelligence analysts, tankers, and everybody else clean their weapons as often (or not often) as they're forced to.
507th had poor discipline and training, not inferior weapons. They weren't prepared to be effective with rounds coming downrange. It seems from an in-depth analysis of the situation I looked over in Time magazine a while back, that they were of the attitude that they were rear-echelon people. Only grunts fight, don't they? I guess they found the truth the hard way. Any weapons-related problems were likely maintenence-related, via that attitude.

[Preacherman]

To be fair, I understand that front-line troops have "first dibs" on newer weapons, maintenance, etc. I've heard many complaints from fellow Federal LEO's who also serve in the Reserves or National Guard that their units are "sucking on the hind you-know-what" when it comes to getting equipment updated or replaced. Several of them have told me that their basic issue items, such as M16's, are very old and/or battered, so much so that they're no longer fully reliable - and yes, they DO have to deploy with what they've got, because their requests for replacements are not honored!

So, it seems that some of the complaints above are well-founded, to judge by input I've heard from others. On the other hand, I can also accept that a new(ish) M16 or M4, in good working order, kept clean, will be reasonably reliable (unless left out in a sandstorm like that illustrated! :D ).

I have to agree with those who dislike the M16/AR15 action. Back in South Africa in the 1970's, the South African Army tested virtually every available 5.56mm. assault rifle before selecting its new weapon. The M16's that were tested were thrown out after only two or three days because of their inability to handle African dust and dirt, which is all-pervasive (rather like Iraqi conditions, in fact). The eventual selection was the Israeli Galil, which is based on the AK-47 action, and Valmet's improvements to it. It was manufactured in South Africa as the R4, and a chopped-barrel version for paratroops and vehicle use as the R5. Heavy, bulky, but ultra-reliable, and that was the primary consideration.

[Jeff White]

We've hashed this topic over here more times then I can remember. I'm going to refer you guys to several past threads and you can read the arguements there:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=95241&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=42598&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=50682&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=32250&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=30533&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=32111&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=30550&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=18397&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=18373&highlight=%27507th+Maintenance%27

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127744&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=116576&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115583&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=88585&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=86743&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=73996&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=68733&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=65734&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=59502&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=56682&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=52186&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=51233&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=49308&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=41173&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=39635&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=35783&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=25767&highlight=M16

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22337&highlight=M16

You'll see that the debate got heated and many of the threads ended up locked. One thing I noticed is that soldiers in combat arms MOS's had greater confidence in the M16 then people whose experience was in combat support or combat service support MOS's.

There really isn't any sense in hashing this out again here. There is no small arm that will function after exposure to a sandstorm like is illustrated here without being protected from it.

Being this is the Strategies and Tactics forum, let's discuss how we would protect our equipment and keep it not only operable but available for use in that harsh, unforgiving environment....

Jeff

[Crosshair]

RevDisk

Slightly before my time, but there was an issue with SINCGAR batteries exploding and/or catching on fire. They're lithium batteries. Lithium and water don't mix well in these batteries. Seals were faulty. Wasn't listed in the TM, nor was there any corrective actions published. Until the manufacturer fixed the problem, our "corrective action" was welding plates onto the SINCGARS manpack frames. Lithium fire will eventually eat through the steel plate, but it gives you precious seconds to get the radio off your back. Wasn't in any TM or tech memo until well after the situation was solved.

Having played with TINEY amounts of lithium in chemistry in HS, I bet everyone was hauling ass away from that thing when it started to go. A fire with that much lithium was probably quite interesting. :uhoh:

Back on topic, when I first got my SKS I cleaned the cosmoline out of it. Well when I went to fire it for the first time I learned that there must be some hidden locations on an SKS cause I was thoroughly covered in cosmoline after the first magazine. Anything that can run that well with that much goop in it is a surefire weapon in my book

[warriorsociologist]

PUMC_TomG, small world. Some guys from my old unit just rotated back from there about 3 months ago (they were working as the MP/perimeter security force). The SSgt. in charge of them and I knew each other fairly well. :cool:

[cliffy109]

I'll admit that I've never been a big fan of CLP. Any product that proports to clean, lubricate and protect is likely a compromise on all three counts. I'm much more comfortable using a cleaner to clean, a lubricant to lubricate and a protectant to protect. Maybe that's a result of having the luxury of a cleaning bench in my house instead of a patch of dirt in a sandbag reinforced bunker, but having one product to accomplish three objectives seems a bit of a stretch.

This brings up another question. How has Militech done in the desert? They have some pretty bold claims, but I have played with it a bit and it seems like a great solution. Its not graphite, but properly applied, it ends up dry, yet quite slick. I'd like to hear some real world use of this.

[Blackhawk 6]

A few observations based on my trips overseas:

1. Weapons Maintenance requires attention by leaders at all levels.

My company had ZERO issues with their weapons. I attribute our success to the following:

A. Use of the dust cover. (Enforced by NCO's)
B. Use of muzzle caps. (Enforced by NCO's)
C. An emphasis on weapons maintenance (Enforced by Officers and NCO's)

We never put our weapons in bags (canvas, plastic or otherwise), hung prophylactics on the muzzle or taped over the ejection port. All maintenance was conducted IAW with the applicable TM; the only exception being the substitution of Militech for CLP by some personnel.

2. Your weapon does not need to be spotless to function properly. I personally spent no more than 20 minutes per day keeping my weapon clean neither did any of my soldiers.

3. New weapons are no more reliable than used ones nor is the inverse true. Both my M-4 and M-9 were well-used when I got them and I put over 2,000 rounds through my rifle before I deployed for the first time. No issues. My unit received brand new M-4's on my last deployment. We conducted maintenance as I had with my previous unit and, again, experienced no issues.

4. Graphite sucks as a lubricant on the M-4/M-16. My 1SG and I bought into the hype. We tried it in a training environment and it took all of 5 minutes to come to the conclusion that graphite is not the way to go.

5. If your M-4/M-16 is not functioning properly either it is broken or you are not maintaining it properly. Any reports of weapon malfunctions say more about the operator than they do the weapon.

6. The AK-47 may be more reliable but it requires maintenance. I have heard plenty of stories about the AK's legendary reliability but I have witnessed more than one malfunction.

[blackrazor]

4. Graphite sucks as a lubricant on the M-4/M-16. My 1SG and I bought into the hype. We tried it in a training environment and it took all of 5 minutes to come to the conclusion that graphite is not the way to go.

Why? What happened? How did you come to this conclusion?

[dustind]

This may not be relevant but when it comes to using graphite cloth or carbon fiber cloth to make airplane parts you never epoxy them directly to aluminum because of corrosion concerns. Even a thick layer of epoxy between the two is said to not be good enough, so people use a thin layer of another material like fiberglass as a buffer.

[Blackhawk 6]

Why? What happened? How did you come to this conclusion?

We lubricated our weapons with the graphite. When we cycled the action manually, it felt slightly gritty. That made us skeptical but as neither of us had ever used it before we concluded that it must be normal.

We both shot the standard Army rifle qualification course. In forty rounds, I experienced two stoppages, my 1SG three. These are the only stoppages I ever recall having with my M-4. We cleaned (as I recall, it was a pain getting all of the graphite lubricant off my weapon) and lubricated our weapons with a "wet" lube. Both qualified expert; no stoppages.

I believe a good friend and co-worker, AhmugGB, experienced similar issues with graphite lubes with his ODA.

Bottom line: Graphite is a no-go as far as I am concerned.

[confed sailor]

:evil: i love watching you army types, its good after work entertainment :neener:

ET3 Clark USN

[RevDisk]

i love watching you army types, its good after work entertainment

Wait, you Navy folks actually do any work? ;)

RevDisk
US Army, '99-Present

[1911 guy]

but in reply to the posts, mantaining your wep per the book will keep you busy resolving failures. A few drops of Break Free and then wiping everything dry will serve you better. I learned this in the first Persian Excursion. Send 'em Break Free and your prayers. they'll need both.

[confed sailor]

well rev. as a baby nuke training up to go to sea on the most awesome pieces of machinery ever devised,

we dont work hard as in breakin a sweat, but ill tell you i have learned more crap in 6 months, than i did in high school and 2 years of college put together. I do have a deep respect for fellows brave enough to go get shot at. sometimes i get the feeling id like to go, it passes quickly.

but as for the navy workin, its our mantra "work smarter, not harder" :neener:

unless you're a chief and then its home by lunch :p hooah