|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
i decided to respond because i'd like to get to the bottom of it. the main reason that the 'anti-cleaners' give is that by scraping the carbon off the bolt tail, you risk damaging it, and that it's a 'critical dimension'.
however, the built up crud on the tail changes the dimensions much more than any cosmetic damage or worn finish that using a bolt scraper tool does. so, that argument contradicts itself.
so, is it critical or not? personally, i don't think so. i don't think that scraping carbon off the bolt tail with the proper tool can damage or remove metal from the bolt enough to affect the functioning of the weapon. if so, letting the crud build up would affect it more. is it necessary to scrape it off? i don't think so either.
IMHO, i just think that it boils down to personal preference. clean it if you want or don't (and keep it lubed well). either way seems to work for both parties or else there wouldn't be much to argue about.
I use a copper or bronze brush to remove carbon build up on the piston on my gun.
As long as the metal on the scraping tool/brush etc is "softer" than the object being scraped, it should not damage it. I'm no metallurgist, but that's how it was explained to me.
And I would think that it is the rings that are critical, as they form the seal in the carrier body, not the tail.
And I see someone referring to Pat Rogers in regards to cleaning. Now, I'm not pretending to speak for Pat, as I most certainly do not, but in his video Basic Carbine from Panteao Productions he states very clearly his take on weapons cleaning. He does not clean his guns at all, because he does not carry one for a living anymore. He also states that if he carried a gun for a living, he would certainly clean it on a regular basis.
Of course, but I used it as an example of how 20,000 rounds worth of carbon on the bolt tail had no adverse effects.
I clean my rifles after every time theyre used but it only consists of wiping down everything and running a bore snake down the bore.
Carbon build has no advers effects on the rifle, which is why scraping is not needed.
Someone on here posted their LMT with 10,000 rounds and no cleaning and he lived in the desert i believe so it was full of sand and lubrication was all that was needed.
If your rifle is your duty rifle it should be cleaned but not like alot seem to think. My friends always insist my rifle will fail because I dont scrape my rifle clean and they try to give me pointers like using sectional rods to clean the chrome plated bolt carrier chamber(take 4 and twist.....), or using a M9(bayonet) to clean the bolt tail because this is what they are taught in the Army....that carbon is what makes your rifle have stoppages.....
I don't disagree about the carbon build up issue. I just have my routine for maintenance, and specific reason why I do it and enforce that standard with my guys.
Here is something I posted on a different site:
We perform field maintenance every time we bivouac for the night, either on operations or on exercise. We call it TEXAS, and it is part of our daily maintenance routine:A little anecdote to perhaps explain why I have my guys follow a strict maintenance regime:
One unit in the norwegian military absolutely hates the HK416. They hate it because they experienced several malfunctions during a very heavy TIC in Afghanistan, the most prevalent was short stroking, or failure to cycle. They took casualties during the TIC, with two cat A patients who barely made it.
During the investigation, by a commission sent down to identify lessons learned, members of this unit suggested that the HK416 is not suited for combat and that they now had zero trust in the weapon. The chief of the Army was tasked with identifying wether or not the Army should continue using the HK416, or if the Army should lead a service wide initiative to replace it all together.
Now, it of course never came to that, as there are several other units who absolutely love the gun. We are in fact purchasing new weapons. Still, what was discovered during the investigation was that the unit in question had very lax maintenance standards, a factor that greatly contributed to the malfunctions they experienced that day. The guns had never been cleaned, and had insufficient amounts of lube.
This incident happened after I came home from Afghanistan, so it did not influence the standard I follow. It did, however, reinforce my belief that the user must do every step neccessary to ensure reliable function when he rolls out of the gate.
TEXAS (Personal and crew served/vehicle mounted weapons)
SIBERIA (Personell)
LAS VEGAS (Optics/NV/Comms)
DETROIT (Vehicles)
The weapon is stripped down to main components, all foreign debris and moisture is removed, and the weapon is lubed. It might be viewed as unneccessary by some, but this is the best way for the SL to be sure of the status of his squads equipment, for the PL to be sure of the his platoons equipment and so forth. Nobody has a chance to be 'that guy' who didn't lube his gun, or the like.
And that has happened. During HOTO with our replacement team, I gave my replacement a few tips on the RWS I had manned during my tour. I told him that it NEEDS lube! As we were rolling out to one of the FOB's, we stopped by some hills so the new guys could get a chance to test fire their guns in country. As the shooting went on, I could hear my replacment on comms stating that he had some malfunctions with the gun. I just shook my head in disbelief. When we arrived at the FOB I asked him if he had lubed the gun; he replied that he hadn't, because he wanted to test how it ran without lube.
This was not in Norway on some square range, mind you, but in Taliban country.....I was less than impressed.
So this is why I do not subscribe to the less is more approach to cleaning, although I completely understand that the gun can accept a lot of soot without suffering a malfunction.
Last edited by Arctic1; 06-29-12 at 14:00.
Excellent post Artic and very, very good information.
Listening to my friends bad mouth their M4's I can honestly say the issues yall experienced are what my friends experienced.
Its always easier to lay the blame on the rifle than the user.
If you honestly want to scrape carbon the only tool i would recommend is the CAT-M4. It still makes me cringe to see scraping and I have done it before myself, but the CAT-M4 does the least damage IMO.
Just read your edit Arctic.
I do see your point, i think when in your position and having non gun guys you have to take extra steps, cause common sense isnt so common after all.
The main thing I advise against is scraping with tools not designed for that. My bestfriends have told me things they have done to pass inspection, including brillow pads, sectional rods, M9 bayonets, shaving cream, etc. That is all about getting every spot of carbon off, something that is not needed.
The carbon on the bolt tail and inside the carrier on he M4 should never ever be so bad that it requires scraping by incorrect methods.
Last edited by sinlessorrow; 06-29-12 at 14:35.
I agree with what you are saying. I guess my reply was a little more broad than just this thread.
I guess I'm not really in either of those two camps as I just thinks it's a waste of time, not that it will do any serious damage. I don't think leaving it will hurt a thing and I don't think cleaning really will either, though I will not spend time cleaning something unless there's a benefit.
I have one rifle I keep pretty clean, within reason, as it has a more important role than the others. The others get cleaned if they're contaminating stuff around them.
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~ Paul Howe
Having spent just shy of 23 years in the Army (Field Artillery) I will quickly break my usual silence to reinforce the suggestion that what folks learned in the Army about small (and big) arms maintenance is often based more on preparation for home station inspections than for combat. I hope that we've outgrown such stupidity. Looking back on my Cold War years gives me shivers to think about how much we might have lost in a throwdown with the Soviets after forgetting all the lessons learned about the M16A1 and the M2 and M60 machineguns after Vietnam and before OIF and OEF. We re-learned a little during the relatively short scraps at Grenada and Panama and Desert Storm, but those were drive-by shootings compared to what we've done and hopefully learned since 2003. Our Army spent a long time with way too many commanders, first sergeants and command sergeants major who had never been in combat. Those people were the types who would go through a company/battery/troop arms room and pronounce the unit a disaster area because of carbon on bolt tails. Sergeant Majors were particularly notorious for that kind of behavior. One silver lining behind the dark cloud of all these years of firefights is that virtually all of our company and battalion and BCT commanders (at least in combat arms units) and their senior enlisted men have actually been in close combat or close enough to it to have their priorities straight.
Last edited by CatBacker88; 07-01-12 at 11:56.
The terminus of the gas system (the chamber formed by the bolt rings, carrier and bolt tail) is relatively small. Given the fact that chamber/bore pressure and gas transfer times are measured in milliseconds, is there any chance that reducing the volume of the terminus by 20% (arbitrary) will lead to accelerate wear caused the bolt unlocking prematurely?
or...
Was this a design consideration by Stoner or Colt (from a product improvement standpoint) and terminus volume was increased to allow for a reliable margin of operation given that a only a fixed amount of carbon built up?
Last edited by MarkG; 07-01-12 at 13:23.
I am sure the proponents of regular cleaning and maintenance do not advocate a white glove regime. I sure don't.
The point is, however, that to properly inspect weapons parts, the gun must be clean. Also, there is a lot more than just carbon build up or soot than can get into a weapons system, that can cause fouling or increase wear.
And lastly, PCC's and PCI's aren't only done pre-anything. It is a continous process, making sure the equipment is operational at all times. In my opinion, if you adopt an attitude that weapons do not need to be cleaned, only lubed, it will be more difficult to ensure that guys take care of their guns. Even though it is only lubing it.
Lastly, has anyone ever done a comparative study between two identical guns where one system is regularly cleaned and lubed, while the other is never cleaned, only lubed, to see if there is a noticeable difference in parts wear?
I have seen many stupid things, like attaching a cleaning rod with a chamber brush to an electrical drill, and cleaning the chamber using that combination, to people using steel wool, scraping parts with knives/screwdrivers etc.
There is a middle ground between white glove cleaning and stupid cleaning, whilst being more thorough than just adding lube.
Bookmarks