Gentlemen,
I have completed due diligence to the best of my ability, searching every available post I could find herein and all without answering the questions I have posited below. If I have grossly erred in my search, please guide me to the relevant thread(s) and accept my chagrined apologies and multitudinous thanks.
BACKGROUND
There is a recent thread concerning Centurion Arms Rifles here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...lable-Thoughts
In it, a Member (post #121, page 13) notes the following: “So I didn't notice when I picked them up but my complete rifles and the uppers I ordered don't have dry film lube in them. I don't think it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things, but MUH MIL-SPEC! Haha. But seriously, did anyone else notice this in their upper?”
THE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
1. Dry Film Lubricant (DFL), from what I’ve gleaned, is mandated in the TDP, yes?
1.1. As several members in several threads have made light of its utility (cost vs. benefit), may I reasonably conclude that this specific mandate is a half century old vestige of optimistic, creative engineering that ultimately bore no fruit on the battlefield? Id est, the absence of factory applied DFL, while making a given rifle MIL-SPEC deficient, does not ultimately hinder that rifle’s proper functioning (assuming, of course, this rifle is wet in all the right places).
2. Which AR components are mandated to have the DFL?
3. Is the MIL-SPEC, factory applied DFL durable? Or, perhaps, it’s more meaningful to inquire into its functional persistence, where persistence is measured within the milieu of an easily measured variable like round count.
Many Thanks!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by TheFalconeer
Bookmarks