Lubrication Issues

[Pat_Rogers]

Gee, you mean that now they agree that heavy lube is better?
There is more to the story, but the gist is correct.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...cation_070716/

Heavy lubrication shown to improve M16, M4 effectiveness

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 16, 2007 17:34:05 EDT

Army weapons officials might have found a way to improve the M16 family’s performance in the desert.

“Dust chamber” tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., last year show that M16 rifles and M4 carbines perform dramatically better when the weapon’s bolt assembly is heavily lubricated.

During each phase of the two-part “system assessment” at Army Test and Evaluation Command, testers fired 60,000 rounds through 10 weapon samples of each model.

Treated with light lubrication, new M16A4s and M4s, performed poorly in the extreme dust and sand conditions of the test, according to a January report from ATEC.

But when testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to the weapons, the test results showed a “significant improvement.”

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication.

The M16A4 stoppage-rate dropped from 2,124 with light lubrication to 507 with heavy lubrication, results show.

For years, Army weapons officials have preached to soldiers to virtues of applying a light coat of lubrication during weapons maintenance.

But the test results reinforce a recent change in weapons maintenance guidance Army units are practicing in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.

At the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Army will conduct a similar dust-chamber test in August, pitting the M4 against the Heckler and Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle.

All of the participating weapons will be treated with a heavy coat of lubrication during the test, Lipsit said.

[DrMark]

There is more to the story, but the gist is correct.

Indeed. Of course, your instruction is well-received here. The fact that the military is aligning with your long-standing conclusions must be encouraging.

I posted this earlier today over here at TOS. We'll see how it's received.

Mark

[Jay Cunningham]

You mean using a dry-film "lubricant" on a reciprocating piece of steel that gets hot isn't a good idea? They'll need to start a thread about that on ARFCom...



I guess they didn't know what they didn't know.

Whoda thunk it.

[Pat_Rogers]

Sorry Doc, didn't mean to one up you.
That testing was condicted a little while ago. It was apparently common knowledge among some but not officially attributed.
None of this is a surprise. We knew it prior to DS, but like the staggering the bolt rings thing, is a myth so entrenched that it had become official.
The big issue for the mil now is how to do a 180 (a paradigm shift?) and change the cleaning/ maintenance protocol.
For some, anyway.
There are a whole lot that have known about it and ignored the official policy.

[HolyRoller]

Thanks for the good info. I'm glad somebody put some numbers on it.

Just let me make sure I am clear on the results. There were 120,000 rounds fired through the M16s and 120,000 rounds fired through the M4s, I understand, divided evenly between dry and wet weapons. Then the article says that, properly lubed, the M16 failure rate dropped from 2124 to 507, and the M4 failure rate dropped from 9836 to 678.

If I understand correctly, this means that in a very harsh environment intended to induce failure, there were:

2124 failures out of 60,000 dry M16 rounds
507 failures out of 60,000 wet M16 rounds
9836 failures out of 60,000 dry M4 rounds
678 failures out of 60,000 wet M4 rounds

That's a dramatic improvement. If I'm not correctly reading it, please correct me. Either way, I'll make sure to clean and generously lube my M4gery before I go to sleep.

[Robb Jensen]

It's good progress. Old traditions diehard.

[C4IGrant]

Sorry Doc, didn't mean to one up you.
That testing was condicted a little while ago. It was apparently common knowledge among some but not officially attributed.
None of this is a surprise. We knew it prior to DS, but like the staggering the bolt rings thing, is a myth so entrenched that it had become official.
The big issue for the mil now is how to do a 180 (a paradigm shift?) and change the cleaning/ maintenance protocol.
For some, anyway.
There are a whole lot that have known about it and ignored the official policy.

If I am not mistaken Pat, didn't some VP of DPMS rip into you in a letter to SWAT mag about staggering the gas keys and how stupid it is to NOT stagger them?



C4

[Pat_Rogers]

Holyroller,
The rounds were not "wet" or "dry". The guns were run first lubed according to the TM. After that they were run with more lubrication.
The ammunition was not- nor should ever be- lubed.
Remember you are reading a report from a trade paper. The original report of the tests has significantly more information, and that might add to a better understanding.

I have been running the bolts heavily lubed for a long time- it works. It works better in all environments.
A clean dry gun will not run.
A dirty wet gun will run- i see this in every class, and my experience over several decades bears this out.

Grant- yeah. He made some noise, but it was fluff. I answered him in print.
I stopped teaching that in the late 80's. It is nonsense.

[jmart]

Holyroller,
The guns were run first lubed according to the TM. After that they were run with more lubrication.
......

What I don't get is the TM already states to "generously" lube the bolt, gas rings, cam pin ......."

"Lightly" lube various detents, CH, key, ejector ........

Sounds to me like the TM always had it right but somewhere along the way the training shifted to lightly lubing everything. Or is there another lube level beyond "generous". Are we talking "Ludicrously" lubing here .......?

Remember you are reading a report from a trade paper. The original report of the tests has significantly more information, and that might add to a better understanding.

Pat, if by any chance you could obtain a copy from one of your sources and post it, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

[HolyRoller]

Pat, thanks for clearing it up. Also I did not express myself well--by "dry" I meant lightly lubed weapons, and "wet" I meant heavily lubed weapons.

By "wet rounds" I meant rounds fired through heavily lubricated weapons, and by "dry rounds" I meant rounds fired through lightly lubricated weapons. I am no expert in M16/M4 details, but even *I* know you don't lube the actual rounds! But it didn't come across that way.

The only time I've lubed rounds is to try a drop of oil on the top round of the mag in my Walther GSP target pistol to try to make it feed brands of .22 it didn't like. Believe it or not, some in the target shooting community suggest doing that, and I didn't know any better. It was a short-lived experiment; I just went back to .22 brands that work in my GSP.

I've read a lot of your posts here and at 10-8 and they are true force multipliers for me, directing me to good equipment and TTPs, and saving me from mistakes found elsewhere on the errornet. I'm trying to stay off your NFE list! If I can possibly swing the funds and ammo for the SC class, I want to be there, and I hope some deals come through for me before the class fills up.