I have a few things I would like to comment on. I know that "the one and only way" is defined, so what I say probably won't matter, but I think people need some perspective on this "no cleaning" thing.
1. Weapons do not need to be white glove clean to function. Everybody knows this. The whole point of cleaning the gun, ie wiping down the parts, it to facilitate proper parts inspection, not making it spotless.
In addition, gunpowder residue build up will absorb moisture, and can lead to corrosion/rust. This of course depends on materials used, coatings etc.
2. Lube
"Didn't you hear, lube attracts sand and dust."
Well, actually it does. Not a huge problem with assault or battle rifles, seeing as they are mostly closed systems, but it is an issue with crew served weapons, where sand and dust can and will get into the feeding mechanism of the gun.
This is why we try and limit the amount of lube on the outside of the gun, whilst running it sufficiently lubed on the inside.
Dry guns will be coated with sand and dust as well, but doesn't gum up like the areas with lube do. Still, wet sand glides better than dry sand.
The main culprit in regards to foreign debris inside the receiver, are magazines; sand, rocks and dirt gets into the pouches when people are shooting from the prone, low crawling etc, and gets into the gun via the mag. Depending on the amount and size, this can cause some serious issues.
3. "The military way is retarded, and soldiers don't know what they are doing"
This is a common theme, and somewhat understandable. There is no doubt that the "white glove clean" approach to weapons maintenance lost it's original intent somewhere along the way.
I am not going to claim that I know where it happened, or why, but I am pretty sure that the "clean rifle" approach was initially a result of one thing:
An easy standard to enforce across the board to ensure that everybody maintained their weapons.
It was not something that was implemented from a lack of knowledge.
In the military you have studs, duds and everything in between. To enforce a standard that states "no need to clean you guns, just put lube on it", is difficult and problematic. How can you, as a leader, tell if a gun is in working order when doing inspections? How can you tell if the soldier has actually lubed his gun? Is it just the old lube still on there?
Somewhere along the way, the original intent was lost in translation; everyone who has been in the military and done message/comunication drills when marching single file, knows that the message delivered to the first guy is not the same message repeated by the last guy.
This phenomenon is pretty common in the military, unfortunatly, where proper knowledge of intent/cause/reason of why something is done a specific way is substituted by "hearsay knowledge"; after a while this "knowledge" becomes a de facto truth, and no one can no longer recall the original intent/cause/reason.
That is why soldiers are now judged on the cleanliness of their guns, and use retarded methods to get them spotless; their instructors was taught by their instructors, who in turn was taught by their instructors and the message was scrambled along the way.
I'll end with this Gunfighter Moment, by Larry Vickers:
http://soldiersystems.net/2012/09/01...rry-vickers-3/