Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/7/2003 6:20:27 PM EDT
JAMMED WEAPONS, DEAD SOLDIERS
The Progressive Review wrote:
ED OFFLEY, SOLDIERS FOR THE TRUTH - Buried deep within the latest news report on the deadly ambush of the 507th Transportation Maintenance Co. in Iraq on March 23, 2003, was a chilling nugget of information. It now appears that the soldiers who were killed or taken prisoner in that now-infamous firefight shared a common misfortune. Their rifles had all jammed. blackwaterusa.com/btw/articles/jammed.html

ED OFFLEY, SOLDIERS FOR THE TRUTH - Buried deep within the latest news
report on the deadly ambush of the 507th Transportation Maintenance Co.
in Iraq on March 23, 2003, was a chilling nugget of information. It now
appears that the soldiers who were killed or taken prisoner in that
now-infamous firefight shared a common misfortune. Their rifles had all
jammed.

Disavowing an earlier news report that had alleged Pvt. Jessica Lynch
had fired multiple clips of ammunition at the attacking Iraqis before
she was injured and taken prisoner, The Washington Post has now
published a more detailed account. The newspaper described how she was
seriously injured when the Humvee vehicle in which she was riding
crashed at high speed into an overturned Army tractor-trailer. Then, the
team of three Post reporters noted:

"Lynch tried to fire her weapon, but it jammed, according to military
officials familiar with the Army investigation. She did not kill any
Iraqis. She was neither shot nor stabbed, they said."

As the Pentagon proceeds with its official "after action reports" and
"lessons learned" effort from Operation Iraqi Freedom, troubling
information has begun to emerge from numerous sources that jammed
weapons were a serious problem in Iraq. Worse, it appears that this
happened because many American troops were equipped with a lubricant to
clean their rifles and side arms that was ineffective in the harsh
desert environment.

It wasn't just Pvt. Lynch in the 507th Maintenance Co. who fell victim
to a jammed weapon. An earlier report in The Washington Post on Apr. 14,
2003, contained the first detailed accounts of the ambush from the
just-rescued POWs:

"The bullets and explosions came from all sides. Some of the vehicles
flipped over. Other drivers hit the gas hoping to outrun the danger, but
ran into even heavier fire. In the swirling dust, soldiers' rifles
jammed. Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving
rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies
swarming all around. ... Finally, it fell to Sgt. James Riley, a
31-year-old bachelor from Pennsauken, N.J., and the senior soldier
present, to surrender. 'We were like Custer,' he recalled today, still
sounding shocked. 'We were surrounded. We had no working weapons. We
couldn't even make a bayonet charge ‚ we would have been mowed down.'"

The probable cause of this widespread weapons failure has been blamed on
a government-issued lubricant known as "CLP" that has been provided to
many ‚ but not all ‚ U.S. Army soldiers. A number of Army veterans and
contractors have denounced CLP as totally ineffective in preventing sand
and dust buildup in weapons in Iraq.

"The CLP and Breakfree brand oil the military purchases is worthless,"
said Aaron Johnson, a 10-year veteran of the Army and Army Reserve, and
author of a Defense Watch guest column on the Army M9 sidearm ("How to
Save the M9 Beretta," June 16, 2003). "I'm sure large amounts are
acquired [by the Army] at relatively low cost, but that's why it should
be done away with. That oil is too rich, and has little effectiveness at
keeping weapons clean." "The troops will tell you, CLP attracts dirt and
grit." Johnson continued. "It is also so thick it can reduce recoil
speed, resulting in stoppages. It thickens in the cold, and when in hot
weather areas it is usually attracting dust and sand."

In an e-mail forwarded to Defense Watch, retired Lt. Col. Robert
Kovacic, who works for a defense contractor in Kuwait that trains U.S.
military units, echoed Johnson's remarks. "I can say with complete
assuredness, from many, many observations [of training exercises], that
CLP does not work. I did not use it ... at Fort Polk (cause it did not
prevent rust, I don't care what the government says), and it sure as
hell does not work here."

What is bewildering to veterans such as these is that there is a product
that has proven effective in desert combat. MILITEC-1 Synthetic Metal
Conditioner, manufactured by the company of the same name, has been
approved for Army use and is already widely used by the U.S. Coast
Guard, FBI and a host of other federal police agencies. But the Army
apparently is still shipping CLP en masse to the troops and has resisted
ordering the synthetic lubricant, forcing unit commanders to pay out of
their own pockets to acquire it.
Link Posted: 7/7/2003 8:49:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2003 8:52:33 PM EDT by Blankwaffe98]
Oh not that again. That discussion has been beat to death on the forums here. Raymond
Link Posted: 7/8/2003 4:09:21 AM EDT
GUNN$FUN read this article over with a critical eye and you will see it for the pile of crap it is.
Link Posted: 7/8/2003 10:04:50 AM EDT
Wow. I've seen this thread before.. Pass that well beaten, dead horse please. Meplat-
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 5:59:46 PM EDT
Good lord, that's nothing more than a veiled Miltec-1 ad. Shameful.
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 8:29:41 PM EDT
Ill say it again,it dosent mention the fact that an M249 failed as well as a browning.50,I dont care what lube is used it takes a lot of crap build up to jam that chunk of steel,vetrans who fought in north africa in ww2 will tell the same story"keep them clean or they wont work"and thats for every kind of firearm in this environment.
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 11:19:32 PM EDT
Kill me now...someone, anyone, put me out of my misery.
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 12:26:49 AM EDT
Muley muley, dead on the road. Have a bite, it tastes best cold..
Link Posted: 7/15/2003 12:11:56 AM EDT
That's right...it wasn't just the '16's that did the jamming...a 249 and a BROWNING FIFTY were rendered inop. A Ma Deuce? Sounds to me like someone was fudging the PM logs. Who were these folks again? The 507th WHAT? Maintenance Company. Uh oh. Panz [bounce]
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 3:20:38 PM EDT
Hang in there lumpy, It'll pass (I think). I was over there durring Gulf War 1, and can tell you that the sand -n- crud will stick to anything liquid (incliding things wet from water ) My opinion is that the only way to keep weapons working is to clean them at least once a day (more durring sand storms, etc). But that's just my two cents.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 8:15:55 PM EDT
I didn't get a chance to offer any comment on this topic before this date, I'm now getting out of the sand box and heading to the states. What I can say is the article does seem to advocate the Mil-tec product in place of CLP. And what folks say about keeping your weapon clean is dead on. I was in the war with the 3rd ID, 10th Egn Bt. We invaded Iraq on Mach 21st. At the front of the pack, so to speak.1st BCT.We spent several weeks on the Kuwiat/Iraq border preparing for the invasion. Everyone savy learned the best way to be prepared for combat was to always keep your weapon clean and dry. I carried a SAW but the emphasis to keep your weapon clean and DRY (no lube oil) applies to all weapons. Ammo and feed mechanisims treated just the same. We only lubed right before movement or not at all. The conditions are just too harsh for a "wet" weapon. If you have been to that region you know what I mean. The Jessica story is probably one of the most controversial one floating in ranks and were it not a trajic story you would hear the truth of what realy happened. These type of folks had no business going in to combat. Not at that time in the war. But getting back to the topic, No lube should be used under harsh dusty, dirty conditons. A non greasy/lubed weapon allows you to clean off the dust accumulation with an air hose or a brush. On the road or during a dust storm a perfectly functioning weapon can be rendered useless in just a few minutes. The key is not to add an attractant to that media always around you. Pretty simple logic.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 8:41:48 PM EDT
JohnM, Glad to hear your doing well and coming back home. Congratulations,job well done. Raymond
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 5:44:14 AM EDT
While in southern Iraq, below the Euphrates, nothing would keep sand out of the weapon, even dry you they still had to be dusted out all the time. When we got north of the Euphrates and especially the Tigris that was not as big of an issue and went back to using CLP. I actually brought with me a small battle of miltec(the free sample they will send you) and a small tube of TWB25. Sand still collected on the weapon no matter which of the 3 (including CLP) you put on your weapon. We brought with use cans of spray on dry lube from Lowe's bought with the impac card prior to leaving. I also had one small bottle of Hoppe powdered Teflon. But both of those ran into the issue of the Marine using too much and getting a large build up that could also effect reliability.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 6:34:04 AM EDT
What! Mechanics not cleaning their weapons? Never heard that one before. (My apologies to the four mechanics I knew who did)
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 9:04:35 AM EDT
WOW! Thanks for the late breaking news, moron!
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 11:51:25 AM EDT
No lubricant would have helped on the day of 25th of April. The sky turned orange and the dust was so thick in the air that it got every where no matter what. If you were outside you ended up coated in dust and later mud. That night was a very bad night, even with NVGs you couldn't see.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 9:01:12 PM EDT
Only one lube company has taken the opportunity to turn the blood of good soldiers into a marketing campaign. It turns my stomach. The Soldiers in question were in over their heads environmentally,and beyond the scope of the mission they were trained for. To claim the whole affair was the result of a lubricant failure is pure profiteering,and without any semblence of honor. Mil-tech can go to hell. S-28
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 11:03:10 PM EDT
you said it brother. i got a free sample from them once. it was ok but i was putoff by the time consuming nature of its use as a lube. my informal bolt lock speed test showed it wasn't any better than FP-10. i'm using fp-10 now and will be trying tw25b (i bought a tube of it with the kleen bore badge) but i definatly won't buy millitec-1 that is just low.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 10:14:47 AM EDT
This is to whomever at AR15.com that deals the headlines on the homepage. Please remove the article referring to this on the homepage. After reading this thread, and through personal experience and those of others it is obvious that poor training killed those soldiers. No lubricant in the world or fantastic weapon system is going to work if not maintained\used in the proper manner. It is a sorry episode that has happened countless times in ALL military forces around the world. Guess what? It will happen again. People are supposed to take these as learning experiences and not an excuse to lay blame on a product or machine. This turned into beating a dead horse.
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 11:46:13 AM EDT
OK, I am so sick of seeing this stupid article on every gun forum I visit - not just once mind you; but multiple times all around every forum. I finally went and read all of the Militec crap. While I agree that this latest ad blitz is pretty distasteful, Militec does in fact provide a pretty objective discussion of how it compares to CLP on their website: 1) Militec doesn't meet the Cleaning requirement (remove a minimum 80% of powder residue). Militec acknowledges this and agrees saying that this requirement isn't relevant. 2) Militec doesn't meet the Preservative requirement - Militec acknowledges this too and says it doesn't matter because guns have corrosion resistant coatings. 3) Militec fails as a lubricant in the dust environment test (8 failures in five tests - compared to 1 failure in five tests for CLP and 6 failures in five tests for a totally dry weapon) - Militec blames the test and calls it unrealistic. I agree the test was a hell of a lot more demanding than any real world test - eight hours of a silica flour sandstorm; and Militec finshed around 5th or 6th. So let's see - a distasteful ad campaign and a product that even the manufacturer agrees doesn't clean or protect your firearms despite an intensive application process. The only thing the manufacturer does contend is great lubricating ability but at least one objective test puts several other brands ahead of it. I had already made up my mind with the ad campaign; but I'm happy to see that I won't be missing out on much due to principles.
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 3:37:42 PM EDT
[cough-cough]XM8 funding[cough-cough]
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 4:21:52 PM EDT
Militec sucks, FP-10 forever!!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 6:03:02 PM EDT
word up brother.
Link Posted: 7/26/2003 8:19:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: [cough-cough]XM8 funding[cough-cough]
View Quote
[ROFL2]........I hear ya!
Top Top