User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 8:34:37 AM EDT
[#1]
Interesting read and thanks !!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 8:43:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Idle thought, but could the absence of any lubricant have anything to do with these malfunctions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 8:51:23 AM EDT
[#3]
Probably not in this case.
The clearances in an M16 are NOT on the level of the clearances in your car's engine. Your engine will die without lubrication, your M16 will just get a little more wear and tear on the running surfaces. Running the rifles dry means that there is nothing wet and sticky in them to attract sand and dust or hold it there. Besides, the receivers on all mil-spec M16's have a baked on dry lubricating film that works pretty well. I wouldn't hesitate to run my rifle dry in sandy or dusty conditions. It might not feel quite so silky smooth when working the action by hand, but I'm sure it would run just fine. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 9:22:21 AM EDT
[#4]
I've heard and read so many different things that I believe it's become a unit choice and/or personal one. Heard CLP, militec, TW-, etc. etc. and now none at all! To each his own I would guess. THere are pics of folks using AK's for sure.......or at least holding them[naughty]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 10:56:35 AM EDT
[#5]
patriot.
Are they having JAMS or MALFUNCTIONS? Two different beasts, a malfunction can be cleared with immediate action drills, a jam needs tools or the skills of an armorer. I am very interested in knowing if they had actual jams, or just malfunctions. If you get the chance, please float that one by your cousin. Also, how many malfunctions, and after how much firing? One or two malfunctions after a few magazines is one thing, but several in your first mag would be another. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 11:21:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: I asked about the use of AK's by our guys over there and he told me oh no, no, no, that's against the Geneva Convetion, nobody over there is using picked up AK's, uh-uh no way. Uhh...what? That violates the Geneva Convention how? [BS] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 12:24:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: I asked about the use of AK's by our guys over there and he told me oh no, no, no, that's against the Geneva Convetion, nobody over there is using picked up AK's, uh-uh no way. Uhh...what? That violates the Geneva Convention how? [BS] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 3:02:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I asked about the use of AK's by our guys over there and he told me oh no, no, no, that's against the Geneva Convetion, nobody over there is using picked up AK's, uh-uh no way. Uhh...what? That violates the Geneva Convention how? [BS] The Geneva convention thing is sarcastic, didn't mean it literally. Truth is from what I have been told they are being used quite a bit. Not because they are better in anyway but because there is ammo freaking everywhere and from what he said, "they're just cool." When I say Jams what I am referring to is the old two rounds trying to go for the chamber at once. We have all had that happen but if you are getting shot it, I could see how that would be more annoying. And yes, this occurs after maybe 120 rounds, which makes sense. They clean 3 times per day. The only other complaint are the mag followers, even the green ones. he first day there he was sitting on a John Deere something or another and says her hears...ping, ping, ping, ping. He told me he was like what the hell was that? "Oh shit, I'm being shot at." This is a guy that did Gulf one, Balakans and was on the DMZ in Korea for a while, he has some time. The M-16 seems to be doing a very good job when run dry. When I brought up the CLP debate and if it was being used there he gave me a look like I was nuts. I actually saw the tub they use to clean their weapons. Anyway, thought I'd share and yes once again he said it is VERY common to see M-14's, he said they are everywhere which I thought was pretty interesting. Good news, lots of pictures of guys trying to drink beer through gas masks and the other usual stuff. They look ok. When asked what other weapon he'd have if he could, he said, and sorry fellas (ducking) the M-14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 4:47:32 PM EDT
[#9]
I remember doing the same thing when I was in the gulf. Weapon Maint. Which was continuous, consisted of breaking down our A2's "shotgun" style and using a dry rag to wipe out any sand and dust in them, and run a patch or two through the bore dry. We always kept a magazine in the Mag Well and something over the muzzle to keep out the dust. My A2 worked pretty well this way. I was able to get all 6 mags empty in one instance with only a couple of stoppages. Nothing a little "Tap" "Rack" "Bang!" didn't clear up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 5:08:31 PM EDT
[#10]
clean three times a day? They must be shooting a ton of rounds... or maybe they should be using CLP? Interesting indeed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 5:12:16 PM EDT
[#11]
The on-going problem of the US Military NOT rotating out worn magazines....
I have no doubt there are guys running around over there with mags in their web gear that have dented and cracked feed lips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 6:33:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: or maybe they should be using CLP? Interesting indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 6:46:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Or maybe you really don't understand the environment that exists over there. They have to break them open 3 times a day to wipe out all the dust that gets into the action. If there was any oil/CLP in there, that dust would stick to it and it would all be a very abrasive goop that would need a lot of time dunked in a tank of solvent and a lot of scrubbing to get out. By running them dry they can simply wipe the dust out with a rag or a brush and keep going. Hoplophile, You hit the nail right on the head. We broke our weapons down at least twice a day to clean out the sand that accumulated in them. CLP was a big no-no as it attracted sand like you wouldn't believe. The 1" paint brushes those of us 'in the know' brought over were our saving grace as they did a great job in clearing out the sand. As far as the effectiveness of the M16/5.56 round, I treated enough Iraqi soldiers to know that the round was extremely effective in stopping them. I saw multiple KIA's with single GSW's to the chest/torso/center mass region. Those that were WIA were incapacitated beyond the ability to continue fighting after sustaining just a single GSW from the M-16. Ranges for the KIA's/WIA ranged from 5 meters to as far as 250 meters (that I personally witnessed). The round performed exceptionally well from my experience.... As a side note, the 'sand' in Iraq is not the sand you and I would encounter on the beach. Its consistency is more like talcum powder and penetrates into every nook and cranny of the M16 and M9... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 6:57:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: clean three times a day? They must be shooting a ton of rounds... or maybe they should be using CLP? Interesting indeed. If the 652nd is cleaning three times a day, you bet they'r shooting. What's cooler is the bad guys that come in with the mortars, they run real fast because Mr. satellite knows just where they are and in come the Apaches. He swears when he get's home though, he is getting a Bushy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 6:59:38 PM EDT
[#15]
I did find it interesting how many M14's were out there. He is about 2 clicks from a Brit camp ad sometimes they go over there to trade stuff and he said even some Brits have L1Al's and many M-16's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2003 7:24:42 PM EDT
[#16]
yeah must be some really fine dust. i can't imagine how hard it must be.
here's a thought... couldn't one use compressed air to get all that dust out? seems like a fairly cheap and easy fix. Wonder if its ever been tried? the stuff we use to clean out computers is just plain R-134a in a can. Can also be turned upside down to freeze insects. Don't ask me how I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 8:21:37 AM EDT
[#17]
I would be interested to know if the desire for the M14 over the M16 derivatives is due to functioning or ballistics. Perhaps a combination of both?
Karl |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 8:36:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Seems to me that patriot73 is fishing to bring up the M14. Well, I can oblige. The recent conflict has indeed made a come back for the M14:
[IMG]http://m14.freeservers.com/images/m14_iraq.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://m14.freeservers.com/images/1apr0382nd4.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://m14.freeservers.com/images/1apr0382nd6.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297M14_in_Ghan-med.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297mystery.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297afghanm14.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297fc24f666.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/dac7c584.jpg[/IMG] Also again popular in sniper role: [IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/ab090413.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/64fe6c3f.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/60f10bcb.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297ussf3434.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/f3f86882.jpg[/IMG] Have not found a picture of one of these in service yet: [IMG]http://www.troyind.com/images/SOPMOD%20cqb.jpg[/IMG] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 9:00:28 AM EDT
[#19]
I hears most of the 82cnd Airborne division deployed with the M14,is this true?if so it would explain why you dont see a lot of pictures of troopers carrying the rifle,Maybe the brass dosent want to convey the Idea that our armed forces need a variety of weapons to choose from,Im a die hard AR guy but its good to see the rifle still in service after 46 years of use.Seals carried them in the first gulf war and still do here and there,and back in the first gulf war the marine expeditionary force marines requested them but the request was derailed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 9:05:06 AM EDT
[#20]
A close friend of mine just got back from Iraq. He is assigned to the 82nd HQ. His weapon was the SAW and he did not mention any M14. He didn't really know what the forward troops were issued (assuming M4).
Karl |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 11:04:53 AM EDT
[#21]
Personal weapons:
You will find a mix of -- M16A2's (majority of troops carry this weapon) M4's (with carry handle, majority are these) M4's (flat tops. More out there all the time) M16A1's (seen a couple in pics) M-14's (popping up mostly in specops or frontline units) M249's M60's (seen a couple of these in pics too) 1911 pistols M9's MP5's (Mostly of the Navy config, but several SD's as well) Barret .50's Remington 700s McMillan .50's (a few) The M-14's are being used as a standard MBR, and as a sniper rifle as the pics above show. That new M-14 stock is uber-snazzy, aint it? I sorta dig it.... Those who have mentioned the problem with the M4A2 are correct. It was a long bloody day and I screwed the pooch. My bad... I was not referring to the proper military names for the weapon. I was referring to the generation of receiver: i.e. A3's are flat-tops, A2's have handles but improved sight etc... I thought that would be easier for the casual observer to understand. To an outsider saying that a flat top M4 is an A1 while a full sized M-16 A1 has the old sight and a handle can get confusing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 11:06:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: A close friend of mine just got back from Iraq. He is assigned to the 82nd HQ. His weapon was the SAW and he did not mention any M14. He didn't really know what the forward troops were issued (assuming M4). Karl Really? This is a big change as most people really do not want to tote the Pig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 11:27:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Personal weapons: M4A2's (majority of M4's are A2's) M4A3's (more and more out there all the time) You mean the M4 and M4A1 I take it? Or has the US military recently adopted new versions? (which I find unlikely) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 11:42:12 AM EDT
[#24]
M4A2?
What the hell is that? Almost all of the M4s have detachable hand guards. 3rd ID went over with M16A4s, as did a lot of other units. The M16A3 is the full auto M16 with heavy barrel? Very rare. Methinks your nomenclature is screwed up. SAW as weapon of choice? There have been a lot of malfunctions with SAWs. They are wearing out fast. (Military never believes weapons wear out, but they do) Ran my M4 dry when we did any desert training and never had a problem. I did get some teflon dry lube (hoppes stuff) when I was on orders to go. Orders got pulled and didn't get a chance to try it. Worked fine on the qual range, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 12:45:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: The on-going problem of the US Military NOT rotating out worn magazines.... I have no doubt there are guys running around over there with mags in their web gear that have dented and cracked feed lips. A weak mag spring can also cause double feeds and the story about rifles jamming in action (the Jessica Lynch story) seems to be mostly double feeds. I read in another AAR that the M-9 magazines have springs that are over used and that brass recommended only loading 10rds in the 15 round mags to improve functioning. I used to oil the crap out of my rifles as my WW2 vetran grandfather had taught me, but with my AR I found that no oil works best. A liberal coating of CLP, Hoppes or Tetra just made the carbon stick to the bolt locking lugs and become a sludge. If I shoot it when well oiled long enough I can actually feel it start to cycle slower. I'm sure the problem is much worse with fine sand. Now I only use a slight amount of oil on the bolt carrier rails and it seems to work well and cleaning is easier. My friend is working his way into SF and recently attending Army SCUBA school. I asked him how they can swim with an M-4 under water, drag into onto a beach and expect it to work and he told me that they were taught to keep their rifles oil free. I think he said the instructors gave the Israilis credit for doing this first. He told me that AR family of rifles work just fine dry and that the IDF has been doing like that for years now. I've started doing it and haven't notice any excess wear and tear yet on my Bushy. -LG [edit for spelling] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 1:20:27 PM EDT
[#26]
It seems to me that those M-14s are official ARMY issues. Noticed the select fire switch on them? Those switches are conspicously absent from civilian M-14 (M-1A1).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 1:27:07 PM EDT
[#27]
John,
He had his highest qualification with the belt fed auto and is also a fairly big guy. I think it was the m-249. Karl |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 4:32:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I hears most of the 82cnd Airborne division deployed with the M14,is this true?if so it would explain why you dont see a lot of pictures of troopers carrying the rifle,Maybe the brass dosent want to convey the Idea that our armed forces need a variety of weapons to choose from,Im a die hard AR guy but its good to see the rifle still in service after 46 years of use.Seals carried them in the first gulf war and still do here and there,and back in the first gulf war the marine expeditionary force marines requested them but the request was derailed. AFAIK the M14 is being issued as a DMR at the squad level in the 101st and 82nd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 5:02:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Put a little sand in the buffer tube and see if your AR15 malfunctions. I once had a tiny piece of metal particle that got between the buffer and the tube and my AR15 wouldn't cycle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2003 9:57:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Personal weapons: You will find a mix of -- M16A2's (majority of troops carry this weapon) M4A2's (majority of M4's are A2's) M4A3's (more and more out there all the time) M16A1's (seen a couple in pics) M-14's (popping up mostly in specops or frontline units) M249's M60's (seen a couple of these in pics too) 1911 pistols M9's MP5's (Mostly of the Navy config, but several SD's as well) Barret .50's Remington 700s McMillan .50's (a few) The M-14's are being used as a standard MBR, and as a sniper rifle as the pics above show. That new M-14 stock is uber-snazzy, aint it? I sorta dig it.... Standard Rifle for the Army is either the M16A2 or the M16A4. The M16A1 and M16A3 (A2 with full auto, fixed handle)are out there but in very small numbers. Standard pistol is the M9 and M11 (Sig 228, limited standard). Only SOF uses the 45s. Standard Sniper rifle is the Remington M24. M14s use is limited. SOF has a bunch of SPRs, SR-25s, etc. Heavy Sniper Rifle is either the Barrett M82 or Barrett XM107. Standard Machine Guns are the M240 (US version of the MAG58), M60, M249, M2 and Mk19. Again this list is for US Army weapons, not other services for they have different nomacatures. ie Mks (NAVY) and GAU/GUU (USAF). DE OPPRESSO LIBER |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2003 12:07:40 AM EDT
[#31]
I was watching FOX news the other day and saw some Army guys, unsure what unit, who were searching a vehicle along with some Iraqis, and a few of them were carrying AK's.
The Iraqi's also had AK's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2003 12:52:46 AM EDT
[#32]
In this type of dusty environment, I wonder, has anyone tried a dry lubricant? Like graphite? I used to use a PTFE in alcohol solution in bearings on my RC cars when I raced them... the alcohol made it easy to apply the lube to everything, and it quickly evaporated leaving just the teflon on everything it touched. So long as you kept the dust off for the 2 minutes that it took to dry, you wouldn't have to worry about the stuff attracting more dirt. I'm really surprised that we haven't heard of at least someone experimenting with this kind of lube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2003 6:06:38 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: In this type of dusty environment, I wonder, has anyone tried a dry lubricant? Plenty of Marines used graphite. The weapons functioned well and did not attract as much sand as those that were lubed with CLP. Even those M16's that were never lubed functioned well...Personally, I used no lube at all on mine and it functioned flawlessly (assuming one brushes out the sand at least twice daily). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2003 7:20:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Notice how close that soldiers eye is to the ACOG , ACOG while a great scope has no damn eye relief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2003 1:05:28 AM EDT
[#35]
I just read an article (either in SOF magazine or Small Arms Review) about an SF team that says they used gallons of CLP, but that was only on the M2HB I think.
I use dry lubricant on those guns I know will rapidly get dirty (like an M11 with a .22lr conversion kit). I also have to use it sometimes on other rifles and pistols in the winter here as it can get down to -50degF when many lubricants will freeze. The ultimate is a teflon impregnated nickel or similar. I have a few pistols with Robar's NP3 (an electroles (sp?) nickel with teflon), and they run best without any lube at all cause it's in the finish. Doesn't Colt and Bushmaster finish their receivers with a baked on dry lube film on the insides of the uppers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2003 5:53:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Notice how close that soldiers eye is to the ACOG , ACOG while a great scope has no damn eye relief. The TA11 ACOG being shown in that picture is 2.4" to ideal eye relief and can still be used out to about 4". I have the same model on my AR15 and can use it easily even with it mounted on the front of the receiver (nose to charging handle hold): [img]http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/AR15_2.jpg[/img] I think this is probably more a case of the soldier doesn't know how to use his equipment than it is a case of the ACOG has bad eye relief. Hell, on my own TA11 you would too close with your eye positioned like his and it would look about the same as it does at 4.5". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2003 6:18:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Agree with BR on the eye relief. Never had any shortness with issued ACOG scopes. Always thought of operator error when I see that photo. Reminds of when the M4 first came out and the Army showed photos of support personnel qualifing with the stock totally collasped.[]
Need to clarify an earlier statement of mine and that's reference to the 45s used by Army SOF. Model 1911A1s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2003 7:57:45 AM EDT
[#38]
The 101st deployed with the M-14 at the squad level, the 82nd deployed with the M-4 A-1.
The M-14 is used for its ability to offer suppresive fire, and good terminal ballistics at longer ranges. The reports from Iraq state that the M-4 is an excellent weapon and highly valued over the M-16 A-2, as is the .223 round. But in Afghanistan particularly and in the desert the extra range afforded by the M-14(.308) is appreciated. I think certain units are now deploying with a couple of M-14 gunners per squad for this very purpose. But the M-4 still takes the award at the 0-300 yard range and in close quarters. This is where most squad level infantry combat takes place. You can learn more here; [url]http://www.sftt.org/article06102003a.html[/url] [url]http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article05122003a.pdf[/url] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
